القائمة
Rates responses and plans against quality rubrics. Used for plan validation, response quality audits, and multi-agent consensus.
يُحدَّد Prompt الذي يراجع المصدر أولًا بشكل افتراضي. يمكنك التبديل إلى أمر مباشر أو تنزيل نسخة محلية.
اقرأ SKILL.md وأي ملفات مرافقة يعرضها SkillsMP قبل أن تقرر التثبيت.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
يتجاوز الأمر المباشر Prompt المخصّص للمراجعة. افحص المصدر قبل تشغيله.
npx skills add https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio --skill response-raterيبقى الأمر في سطر واحد. مرّر أفقيًا لمراجعته كاملًا قبل النسخ.
تفضّل نسخة محلية؟ نزّل الملفات المتاحة حاليًا لدى SkillsMP.
عرض SKILL.md
Agent frontmatter enhancements — disallowedTools, mcpServers scoping, fork_eligible field
Context management — pre-compact persistence, threshold alignment, microcompact/circuit breaker detection
Hook enhancements — updatedInput for bash safety prefixes, suppressOutput for verbose blocks, denial-based routing feedback
| name | response-rater |
| description | Rates responses and plans against quality rubrics. Used for plan validation, response quality audits, and multi-agent consensus. |
| version | 2.0.0 |
| model | sonnet |
| invoked_by | both |
| user_invocable | true |
| tools | ["Read","Write","Edit","Bash","Glob","Grep"] |
| best_practices | ["Use consistent rubric dimensions","Require minimum scores for approval","Document improvement suggestions","Track scores over time"] |
| error_handling | graceful |
| streaming | supported |
| verified | true |
| lastVerifiedAt | "2026-02-22T00:00:00.000Z" |
| source | builtin |
| trust_score | 100 |
| provenance_sha | 6f35df533ab2ff35 |
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 |
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
Average the weighted scores:
Overall = (8×0.2) + (7×0.2) + (5×0.2) + (9×0.2) + (8×0.2) = 7.4/10
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
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>
</best_practices>
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>
| 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 |
Before starting:
cat .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
After completing:
.claude/context/memory/learnings.md.claude/context/memory/issues.md.claude/context/memory/decisions.mdASSUME INTERRUPTION: Your context may reset. If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.