review

name	review
description	Full qualitative review of the agent setup. Reads every file, applies per-component rubrics, runs 21 cross-type optimization checks, and produces KEEP/REVIEW/REMOVE verdicts. Use when the user wants a deep review, redundancy check, or quality assessment of their setup.
allowed-tools	["Bash","Read"]

Review Setup

Full qualitative review of the user's agent setup. Claude reads every file and evaluates quality, redundancy, coherence, and optimization opportunities.

Hard Rules

1. Never give a verdict without reading the files. Lint counts are input data, not the verdict. A component with warnings can still be healthy.
2. Read before you judge. Read every file's actual content before assessing.
3. Don't manufacture problems. If the setup is good, say so.
4. Always end with the evidence-based summary.
5. Record the exact start time (note the timestamp from your first tool call in Step 2) and compute the exact duration at the end.

Step 1: Ask Output Preference

Before doing anything else, ask the user:

Where should i present the results?

1. Terminal - print the report here in the conversation
2. File - write a markdown report to a file (you'll choose the path)

Wait for their answer before proceeding.

Step 2: Run Lint for Context

Determine the setup path. If the user doesn't specify one, use the current working directory.

uv run python skills/lint/scripts/run_assessment.py <setup-path> recommended

Read the JSON output. This gives you per-component diagnostics, token budget, trigger overlaps, and dependency findings.

Do NOT present the lint report separately. Use it as context for the qualitative review.

Step 3: Read Actual Files

Read the actual content of every component: SKILL.md files (including reference files in subdirectories), command files, agent files, CLAUDE.md, and settings.json for hooks.

Step 4: Analyze Each Component

For each component, provide:

• Lint results: list each rule that failed and explain WHY it failed in one sentence
• A 2-3 sentence qualitative assessment (what it does, whether it adds value, whether it's well-built)
• Issues found, citing specific content
• Per-component verdict: KEEP, REVIEW, or REMOVE

For lint failures, use this format:

Lint: 3 failures
  FAIL  broken-references — 5 referenced files don't exist in this directory (scripts/foo.sh, etc.)
  FAIL  token-budget — SKILL.md is 915 lines, 3.6x over the 500-line recommendation
  FAIL  mcp-least-privilege — allowed-tools declares Bash but no script uses shell commands

Use the per-component rubric files for detailed criteria:

• Skills: read rubric/skills-rubric.md
• CLAUDE.md: read rubric/claude-md-rubric.md
• Commands: read rubric/commands-rubric.md
• Agents: read rubric/agents-rubric.md
• Hooks: read rubric/hooks-rubric.md

Step 5: Cross-Type Optimization

Read rubric/cross-type-checks.md and answer all 21 checks with YES/NO and a one-line explanation. These check whether components should be transformed (skill to hook?), merged, or removed.

Step 6: Produce the Report

Read report-format.md for the full report structure. The report sections must appear in this order:

1. What this evaluation checks (hardcoded intro)
2. Inventory table
3. Token budget breakdown
4. Evaluation summary (the headline verdict)
5. Cross-type optimization (21 checks)
6. Numbered suggestions
7. Per-component analysis (lint + qualitative review)

At the very end of the report, include the exact timing:

Evaluated with: harness-eval v{version} (claude-code-plugin)
Duration: [X minutes Y seconds]

Get {version} by running: uv run python -c "import importlib.metadata; print(importlib.metadata.version('harness-eval'))"

Compute this from the timestamp of your first tool call in Step 2 to the timestamp when you finish writing the report.

If the user chose terminal: print the report in the conversation.

If the user chose file: write the report as markdown to the path they specified (or suggest review-report.md in the current directory). Tell them the file path when done.