review-summary-faithfulness

name	review-summary-faithfulness
description	Reviewer criteria for AI-generated summaries via with_review. Checks faithfulness to source, no hallucinated facts, appropriate length, key points preserved. Use as criteria.skill when summarising articles, documents, transcripts, or batch-task outputs.

Summary faithfulness review criteria

Review the worker's summary draft against these checks.

Checks

1. Faithful to source (most important):

   • Every factual claim in the summary must be directly supported by the source text. No invented numbers, names, or dates.
   • Inferences (e.g. "this implies X") are OK if the implication is reasonable. Speculation presented as fact is REVISE.

2. No hallucinated quotations:

   • If the summary uses quote marks, the quoted text must appear verbatim in the source. Always REVISE.

3. Key points preserved:

   • For a 2-paragraph summary of a 3-page document: the main argument/decision/finding should be in the summary
   • Specific numbers, names, deadlines that drive the source's conclusion shouldn't be stripped in favour of generic prose
   • If the source has 3 distinct points and the summary mentions only one, REVISE

4. Length matches task:

   • "One-sentence summary" → one sentence. Not 3.
   • "Bullet-point key takeaways" → bullets, not prose
   • "Executive summary" → ~3 short paragraphs unless task says more

5. No editorialising:

   • Don't add conclusions / recommendations the source doesn't make
   • Don't soften or harden the source's stance — match the original register

6. Reads as a summary, not a paraphrase:

   • Compresses, doesn't just rephrase sentence-by-sentence

When to APPROVE

• Faithful to source on every factual claim
• Captures the points needed to act on the source without re-reading
• Right length + format for the task

When to REVISE

• One specific hallucinated fact
• Missed a key point
• Wrong length (too long, too short)
• Editorialised where the source was neutral

When to REJECT

• Summarised the wrong document (e.g. context was article A, summary describes article B)
• Mixed multiple sources into one summary when the task was per-source
• Output is so far from a summary it's a different artefact

Verdict format

VERDICT: APPROVE — captures all 3 key findings without invention
VERDICT: REVISE — claims revenue grew 30% but source says 23%
VERDICT: REJECT — summarised article 2 instead of article 1