evaluator-write-retest

Stars13

Forks1

UpdatedApril 6, 2026 at 02:32

Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for sprint retest and retest report writing. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during retest mode.

Installation

Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.

Source

redker56

redker56/auto-harness

View GitHub Repository View Creator Repositories

Download

Related occupationsSOC

Based on SOC occupation classification

Software Quality Assurance Analysts and TestersComputer and Mathematical Occupations·SOC 15-1253

File Explorer

5 files

SKILL.md

readonly

name	evaluator-write-retest
description	Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for sprint retest and retest report writing. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during retest mode.
user-invocable	false

Evaluator Write Retest

This skill governs Evaluator retest mode and the sprint retest report.

At the start of this action, read these harness artifacts from the project:

.harness/status.md
.harness/intake.md
.harness/spec.md
.harness/design-direction.md
.harness/runtime.md
.harness/contracts/sprint-XX-contract.md
.harness/contracts/sprint-XX-review.md when a review exists for the sprint.
.harness/qa/sprint-XX-qa-report.md
.harness/qa/sprint-XX-fix-log.md
.harness/qa/sprint-XX-retest.md when rewriting the retest report.

Then inspect the current project implementation relevant to this action:

Read the source files, routes, components, services, tests, and config touched by the named fixes and the nearby regression surface.
Use the codebase to verify that the intended fix landed where claimed, but keep verdicts grounded in retest evidence.

Then read these skill references:

references/protocols/file-ownership.md
references/templates/retest-report.md
references/rubrics/bug-severity.md
references/rubrics/retest-review.md

Follow these rules:

Retest only the named fixes and tightly related regression surface.
Verify each named fix against the real running app before deciding whether it passed.
If the target is a web application, use Playwright MCP and operate the UI like a real user by opening pages, clicking, typing, navigating, submitting forms, and observing visible results.
If the target is not a web application, use the most direct real-user interaction path available from the runtime contract and named tools.
Use the retest template exactly.
Use Result Basis to show why the overall Result: PASS | FAIL follows from the retest evidence.
Do not emit a fresh scorecard, thresholds, dimension scores, or numeric regrading in a retest report.
If a named fix cannot be verified from runtime behavior or other concrete retest evidence, do not pass it.
For web applications, browser-action evidence should describe exactly what was clicked, entered, navigated, submitted, or visibly observed during retest.
Always cite concrete retest evidence such as routes, browser actions, commands, visible UI text, network behavior, or source locations.
Do not silently upgrade unresolved issues to passed status.
Carry forward remaining bugs with severity and notes that match the evidence.

More from this repository

same repository

evaluator-review-contract-parallel

redker56/auto-harness

Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for parallel sprint contract review before implementation. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during review mode.

2026-05-0213

evaluator-write-final-parallel

redker56/auto-harness

Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for parallel final QA report aggregation. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during evaluator_final_parallel.

2026-05-0213

evaluator-write-qa-parallel

redker56/auto-harness

Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for parallel sprint QA and QA report writing. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during evaluator_qa_parallel.

2026-05-0213

evaluator-write-retest-parallel

redker56/auto-harness

Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for parallel sprint retest and retest report writing. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during evaluator_retest_parallel.

2026-05-0213

generator-build-integrator

redker56/auto-harness

Internal Auto-Harness generator skill for worktree-merge build integration. Use only inside the parallel Generator integrator during build mode.

2026-05-0213

generator-build-worker

redker56/auto-harness

Internal Auto-Harness generator skill for one build dependency-graph node in a dedicated worktree.

2026-05-0213

Evaluator Write Retest

This skill governs Evaluator retest mode and the sprint retest report.

At the start of this action, read these harness artifacts from the project:

.harness/status.md

.harness/intake.md

.harness/spec.md

.harness/design-direction.md

.harness/runtime.md

.harness/contracts/sprint-XX-contract.md

.harness/contracts/sprint-XX-review.md when a review exists for the sprint.

.harness/qa/sprint-XX-qa-report.md

.harness/qa/sprint-XX-fix-log.md

.harness/qa/sprint-XX-retest.md when rewriting the retest report.

Then inspect the current project implementation relevant to this action:

Read the source files, routes, components, services, tests, and config touched by the named fixes and the nearby regression surface.

Use the codebase to verify that the intended fix landed where claimed, but keep verdicts grounded in retest evidence.

Then read these skill references:

references/protocols/file-ownership.md

references/templates/retest-report.md

references/rubrics/bug-severity.md

references/rubrics/retest-review.md

Follow these rules:

Retest only the named fixes and tightly related regression surface.

Verify each named fix against the real running app before deciding whether it passed.

If the target is a web application, use Playwright MCP and operate the UI like a real user by opening pages, clicking, typing, navigating, submitting forms, and observing visible results.

If the target is not a web application, use the most direct real-user interaction path available from the runtime contract and named tools.

Use the retest template exactly.

Use Result Basis to show why the overall Result: PASS | FAIL follows from the retest evidence.

Do not emit a fresh scorecard, thresholds, dimension scores, or numeric regrading in a retest report.

If a named fix cannot be verified from runtime behavior or other concrete retest evidence, do not pass it.

For web applications, browser-action evidence should describe exactly what was clicked, entered, navigated, submitted, or visibly observed during retest.

Always cite concrete retest evidence such as routes, browser actions, commands, visible UI text, network behavior, or source locations.

Do not silently upgrade unresolved issues to passed status.

Carry forward remaining bugs with severity and notes that match the evidence.