Agent Skills: Response Rater Skill

Response Rater Skill

Step 1: Define Rating Rubric

Use appropriate rubric for the content type:

For Plans:

| Dimension | Weight | Description | | --------------- | ------ | --------------------------------- | | Completeness | 20% | All required sections present | | Feasibility | 20% | Plan is realistic and achievable | | Risk Mitigation | 20% | Risks identified with mitigations | | Agent Coverage | 20% | Appropriate agents assigned | | Integration | 20% | Fits with existing systems |

For Responses:

| Dimension | Weight | Description | | ------------- | ------ | -------------------------- | | Correctness | 25% | Technically accurate | | Completeness | 25% | Addresses all requirements | | Clarity | 25% | Easy to understand | | Actionability | 25% | Provides clear next steps |

Step 2: Evaluate Each Dimension

Score each dimension 1-10:

## Dimension Scores

### Completeness: 8/10

- Has objectives, steps, and timeline
- Missing risk assessment section

### Feasibility: 7/10

- Most steps are achievable
- Step 3 timeline is aggressive

### Risk Mitigation: 5/10

- Only 1 risk identified
- No mitigation strategies

### Agent Coverage: 9/10

- All steps have assigned agents
- Good agent-task matching

### Integration: 8/10

- Uses existing APIs
- Minor compatibility concerns

Step 3: Calculate Overall Score

Average the weighted scores:

Overall = (8×0.2) + (7×0.2) + (5×0.2) + (9×0.2) + (8×0.2) = 7.4/10

Step 4: Generate Recommendations

Provide actionable improvements:

## Recommendations

### High Priority

1. Add risk assessment section with 3-5 risks
2. Include mitigation strategies for each risk

### Medium Priority

3. Extend Step 3 timeline by 2 days
4. Add fallback plan for external API dependency

### Low Priority

5. Add success metrics for each step

Step 5: Make Pass/Fail Decision

Apply minimum score thresholds:

| Task Type | Minimum Score | | ---------- | ------------- | | Standard | 7/10 | | Enterprise | 8/10 | | Critical | 9/10 |

## Decision

**Score**: 7.4/10
**Threshold**: 7/10 (Standard)
**Result**: PASS ✅

Plan approved with recommendations for improvement.

</execution_process>

<best_practices>

1. Consistent Rubrics: Use same dimensions for comparable content
2. Clear Thresholds: Define pass/fail criteria upfront
3. Actionable Feedback: Provide specific improvements
4. Prioritize Issues: Order recommendations by impact
5. Document Rationale: Explain score justifications

</best_practices> </instructions>

Rate this plan for user authentication implementation

Response:

## Plan Rating: User Authentication

### Scores

- Completeness: 8/10 - Good structure, missing tests section
- Feasibility: 9/10 - Realistic timeline and approach
- Risk Mitigation: 6/10 - Only 1 risk identified
- Agent Coverage: 9/10 - Good agent assignments
- Integration: 8/10 - Compatible with existing auth

### Overall: 8.0/10 ✅ PASS

### Top Recommendations

1. Add risk section with security and dependency risks
2. Include test plan for each authentication flow
3. Add rollback procedure for failed deployment

</usage_example> </examples>

Iron Laws

1. ALWAYS use the same rubric dimensions when rating comparable content — inconsistent dimensions make scores meaningless and prevent valid comparison across sessions.
2. NEVER issue a pass/fail decision without documenting score justification for each dimension — unjustified scores cannot be reviewed, challenged, or improved.
3. ALWAYS apply defined minimum thresholds (7/10 standard, 8/10 enterprise, 9/10 critical) — ad-hoc thresholds produce inconsistent approval gates that erode trust in the rating system.
4. NEVER provide vague recommendations — every recommendation must reference the specific dimension it addresses and state the concrete change required.
5. ALWAYS prioritize recommendations by impact — high-priority items that would materially improve the score must be clearly distinguished from low-impact suggestions.

Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Correct Approach | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Using different rubric dimensions for comparable content | Scores cannot be compared across sessions; the rating loses its evaluative value | Always use the same rubric (plans rubric for plans, responses rubric for responses) | | Omitting score justification for individual dimensions | Scores without justification cannot be reviewed, verified, or acted upon | Document specific evidence for each dimension score (what was present, what was missing) | | Setting thresholds arbitrarily per session | Inconsistent thresholds invalidate the pass/fail gate; teams lose confidence in approvals | Always apply the defined thresholds: 7/10 standard, 8/10 enterprise, 9/10 critical | | Providing vague recommendations ("improve quality", "add more detail") | Vague feedback cannot be acted upon; no change results from the review | Reference the specific dimension, score gap, and required concrete change for each recommendation | | Listing recommendations without priority ordering | Equal-weight feedback causes raters to address low-impact items first | Always order by impact: High (affects pass/fail threshold) before Medium before Low |

Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

Before starting:

cat .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

After completing:

• New pattern -> .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
• Issue found -> .claude/context/memory/issues.md
• Decision made -> .claude/context/memory/decisions.md

ASSUME INTERRUPTION: Your context may reset. If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.