cos-review

name	cos-review
description	Diagnose how far along your AI Chief of Staff ("Robin") actually is — a 25-check, 5-layer maturity review across Identity, Sources, Skills, Autonomy, and Output that returns a rank (Intern → Junior Assistant → Trained CoS → Senior CoS → Hand of the King), your weakest layer, and the ONE highest-leverage next move. Evidence-based: it inspects your actual system (identity files, memory, MCP/connectors, skills, scheduled loops) instead of asking you to self-report, then asks only for the behavioral checks it can't detect. Auto-detects Claude Code vs Codex. Use for "/cos-review", "what's my CoS rank", "how good is my Robin", "grade my Chief of Staff", "where is my AI weakest". Modes: `setup` (first full scan + guided fix), bare (bi-weekly re-score vs last time), `status` (30-sec health check of MCPs + skills).
license	MIT

cos-review

You are running the Chief-of-Staff maturity diagnostic for the AI Personal OS course (Workshop 5, capability rung 8). Your job: give the user an honest, evidence-based rank for their Robin, name their weakest layer, and hand them ONE next action — not a lecture, not a to-do list of 25 things.

This is a reckoning, in the instructor's own framing: "you said Robin isn't bringing enough value yet — let's measure honestly WHY." Lead with the honest number. Encouragement comes after the number, not instead of it.

Read-only. In every mode you only inspect and report. You never write to the user's config, never install anything, never "fix" a gap without being asked. The one file you may write is the saved score (Phase 4), and only with a yes.

The full 25-check rubric, the per-check detection recipes (where to look on disk / which tool to probe), and the S3 rung mapping live in reference.md — read it before scoring.

Step 0 — Detect platform + pick the mode (don't ask)

You're running inside Claude Code or Codex — you already know which. Use it to resolve paths: CC → ~/.claude/, project CLAUDE.md, claude CLI; Codex → ~/.codex/, project AGENTS.md, codex CLI. Below, <ROOT> = CLAUDE.md (CC) or AGENTS.md (Codex).

Pick the mode from the user's argument:

• setup (or first-ever run — no saved score found) → full scan, all 25 checks, score, weakest layer, guided ONE fix. This is the Workshop-5 payoff.
• bare /cos-review → the bi-weekly review: re-score, compare to the last saved score, celebrate what moved, suggest the single next action.
• status → skip scoring. Just probe every MCP/connector and list skills; report what's live vs dead in ~30 seconds. Stop after that.

Match the user's language for all conversation (files/labels stay English).

Step 1 — Scan the system (evidence first, ask second)

Work through the five layers in reference.md, in order L1 → L5. For each of the 25 checks, try to detect it before asking:

• L1 Identity & memory — look for <ROOT>, SOUL.md, user-profile.md (global and project), any project-level identity file, and cross-session memory (MEMORY.md / memory/ / managed memory). Detectable on disk.
• L2 Sources (perception) — read the MCP/connector config (~/.claude.json / .mcp.json / ~/.codex/config.toml) and the enabled connectors. Map to: email, a two-way chat channel (S3 = Bot-API Telegram/Slack via /give-robin-a-voice, not a Telegram user-MCP), web/browser, calendar, one social/research source.
• L3 Procedures (skills) — enumerate installed skills (~/.claude/skills/, plugins, ~/.codex/). Check for a journaling skill, an extraction skill (/atomize), a self-built skill, a decision skill (/council), and whether the user can name 5+ commands.
• L4 Autonomy — look for a scheduled loop (a Routine / Codex Automation / LaunchAgent / cron), a deployed listener (~/.robin/, a Railway worker), any evidence of sub-agent use, "something runs before you wake", and hooks (settings.json hooks — note the caveat: hooks don't run in the CC desktop app, only from the terminal; don't penalize a terminal user who simply uses the desktop app).
• L5 Output (delivers results) — mostly behavioral, not detectable — ask these. Has Robin drafted+sent real work content? Produced a briefing you acted on? Handled a task end-to-end? Is there an outcome that wouldn't exist without him? Do you use him daily?

Rules: batch what you detect, then ask only what you couldn't (≤8 questions, L5-heavy — the five L5 checks are almost always asks, plus any L3 "do you actually use it?" confirms). Every "yes" needs evidence — a file path, a live tool, or the user's concrete confirmation. A hopeful "I think so" is a no for scoring; say so kindly. Presence ≠ use: a course-bundle skill file on disk is not a point unless the user actually uses it (see L3 anti-inflation rule in reference.md). Skip sensitive content.

Step 2 — Score + rank

1 point per satisfied check, 25 max. Report the rank from reference.md:

Score	Rank
0–7	INTERN
8–14	JUNIOR ASSISTANT
15–19	TRAINED CoS
20–23	SENIOR CoS
24–25	HAND OF THE KING

Show a compact per-layer readout: L1 ●●●●○ L2 ●●○○○ … with the total and the rank. Be honest and specific — most of a 5-week cohort lands Junior/Trained, and that is on schedule. Don't inflate.

Step 3 — Weakest layer = the ONE move (blind-spot rule)

Count the "no"s per layer. The layer with the most gaps is the highest-leverage investment. Fix bottom-up: L1 → L2 → L3 → L4 → L5 — a lower layer gates the ones above it. State the instructor's line:

"A CoS with great procedures but no sources is a skilled assistant locked in a windowless room. A CoS with initiative but no identity acts in the wrong direction."

Then give exactly one concrete next action — the single cheapest check that would move the weakest (lowest-numbered, most-gapped) layer. Name the skill or step that does it (e.g. "L2 is your gap — wire your calendar; that's one connector and it unlocks half of L5"). Not a list. One.

The value-gap answer, said plainly: if the user feels Robin "isn't useful yet," it is almost always a low L2 (no source that matters) or low L5 (never delivers end-to-end) — show them that in their own numbers.

Step 4 — Save the score (ask) so next time can compare

Offer to append the result to ./cos-rank.md (or ~/.robin/cos-rank.md): date, score, per-layer breakdown, the ONE action chosen. In bare mode, read the previous entry first and lead with the delta ("22 → 24 since W4 — L4 filled in; you're Senior CoS now"). Only write with a yes.

Notes for you (the assistant running this)

• Honest first, warm second. The number is the point; don't soften it away. This diagnostic pays the instructor's promise to open the finale on "why isn't Robin bringing value yet."
• Evidence over self-report. The S2 version was a Y/N quiz; the S3 upgrade is that you actually look. Detect what you can; ask only the rest.
• Co-equal. Every check works on Claude Code and Codex — resolve the right paths from Step 0. Bot-API Telegram/Slack (not a user-MCP) is the S3 channel.
• Don't fix mid-diagnostic. If the user says "just fix L2 now," finish the rank first, then hand off — offer /give-robin-a-voice, /atomize, /init-robin, or the relevant step. This skill measures; the others build.
• Power-user variant: re-map the rubric to their own stack and push the top end (24/25 = Hand of the King) — but keep the checks verifiable; a self-graded 25 that can't show a single outcome (Q24) is a Trained CoS in denial.