| name | module-quality-reviewer |
| description | Review KubeDojo modules against the 7-dim pedagogical rubric. For ANY agent acting as reviewer (codex, composer-2.5, agy, claude). Use when reviewing, scoring, or checking modules. Triggers on "review module", "check quality", "score module". |
| last_calibrated | "2026-05-24T00:00:00.000Z" |
Module Quality Reviewer Skill
Review KubeDojo modules against the quality rubric at docs/quality-rubric.md. Agent-agnostic — applies whether you are codex gpt-5.5, composer-2.5, agy (gemini or Claude models), or claude headless.
Who reviews what (cross-family routing, Decision Card C, 2026-05-24)
Author → Cross-family reviewer
codex / deepseek / claude /
agy / anyone else → composer-2.5 (cursor-agent CLI or cursor IDE)
composer-2.5 → codex (gpt-5.5, danger mode, worktree)
orchestrator inline edits → composer-2.5
Every PR must be reviewed by a different model family than the author per docs/review-protocol.md. "Tests passing" is not a substitute ([[feedback_review_policy]]). The Decision Card C table above + STATUS.md "Active policies" supersede the stale concrete pairings in docs/review-protocol.md until that doc is refreshed.
How to Review
- Read the module fully — line-by-line, not skim ([[code-editing-safety §3]]).
- Run the verifier first:
.venv/bin/python scripts/quality/verify_module.py <path>. Density gates failing (median_wpp < 28, mean_wpp < 30, short-para > 20%) = immediate NEEDS_CHANGES, no rubric needed yet.
- Score against ALL 7 rubric dimensions (1-5 each).
- Be STRICT — a 4 means genuinely good, a 5 is exceptional.
- Flag specific issues with line numbers — vague critique is reviewer-malpractice.
- Verify all external facts. Burden of proof on keeping: if a citation
supports the claim → keep; partial/no/fetch-fail/ambiguous → flag for removal ([[feedback_citation_verify_or_remove]]).
- Test runnability — actually run
bash/kubectl/yaml snippets in a sandbox. Composer-2.5 verifier-pass ≠ runnability ([[feedback_composer_2_5_viable_for_t0_content]]).
Rubric Dimensions (1-5 each)
| Dimension | What to Check |
|---|
| Learning Outcomes | Are they stated? Measurable? Bloom's L3+? |
| Scaffolding | Does content build simple→complex? Narrative bridges between sections? |
| Active Learning | Are there inline prompts? Or is all practice back-loaded to the end? |
| Real-World Connection | War stories with specific details? Or generic "in production" handwaving? |
| Assessment Alignment | Do quiz questions test understanding (scenarios) or recall (what is X?)? |
| Cognitive Load | Well-chunked? Diagrams integrated? Or information dump? |
| Engagement | Memorable tone? Would you recommend this to a colleague? Or dry/robotic? |
Structure Checklist
Reviewer bar ≥ author template. [[curriculum-writer]]'s minimal template lists 2-3 Did You Know? / 4 quiz questions; this reviewer checklist is the stricter shipping bar. Author for the reviewer bar, not the template floor.
Passing Criteria
- Average score >= 3.5/5
- No single dimension scores 1
- Active Learning >= 3
- Assessment Alignment >= 3
Output Format
## Module Review: [Name]
**File**: [path]
**Lines**: [count]
### Scores
| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Learning Outcomes | /5 | |
| Scaffolding | /5 | |
| Active Learning | /5 | |
| Real-World Connection | /5 | |
| Assessment Alignment | /5 | |
| Cognitive Load | /5 | |
| Engagement | /5 | |
| **Average** | **/5** | |
### Structure Checklist
- [x] or [ ] for each required element
### Key Strengths
1. ...
### Must Fix
1. ...
### Verdict: PASS / NEEDS WORK / FAIL
Reference Modules (Gold Standard)
- Platform: What is Systems Thinking? (4.6/5) — narrative voice, inline exercises, scenario-based assessment
- On-Prem: The Case for On-Prem (4.4/5) — balanced perspective, deliberate quiz traps, TCO exercise
- Cloud: AWS Secrets Management (4.0/5) — envelope encryption diagram, debugging quiz scenarios
Anti-Patterns to Flag
- "List of facts" style (bullet points without connecting narrative)
- Quiz questions that test recall ("What is the command for X?")
- All active learning back-loaded to the end
- Diagrams with separate legends instead of inline labels
- "Refer to official documentation for details"
- Sections that could be rearranged in any order without losing coherence
- Unverified external citations (a hard-flag, not a soft-flag — see [[feedback_citation_verify_or_remove]])
- Personal-life framing (interview/job/role narrative — [[feedback_no_personal_framing]])
- Listicle dumps without teaching arc ([[feedback_teaching_not_listicles]])
Common reviewer hallucinations to watch for in YOURSELF
| You are | Watch out for |
|---|
| codex (gpt-5.5) | Fabricating GitHub Actions / Dependabot schema claims ([[feedback_deepseek_hallucinates_on_gh_schemas]] applies here too). Verify CLI/YAML schema before flagging. |
| composer-2.5 | Hallucinated file paths in findings (e.g. claimed PR #1487 path that did not exist). Always quote the exact line from the diff. Verifier-pass ≠ runnability — run the bash. |
| deepseek-v4-pro | Same as codex on schema facts; also rule attribution slippage (SC2236 vs SC2230, semver exact, expansion order). |
| gemini-flash-class (via agy) | DO NOT use as a code/lab reviewer ([[feedback_never_flash_for_code_review]]). Calibrated 0/2 bugs caught on PR #1229. Use agy --model gemini-3.1-pro-high instead (gemini-cli retired). |
| agy (Claude tier) | 0 hallucinations on code review historically — strong default. Surfaces 100% Claude quota independently of Anthropic chat cap ([[feedback_agy_claude_route_during_throttle]]). |
| claude headless | Yes-man drift on close reads ([[feedback_no_yes_man]]); be deliberate about flagging weaknesses, not just strengths. |
Reviewer dispatch protocol (orchestrator perspective)
| Pair | Dispatch |
|---|
| Review claude-authored | .venv/bin/python scripts/dispatch_smart.py review --agent cursor --model composer-2.5 (headless cursor-agent CLI; review-class default mode is read-only). OR open in cursor IDE with composer-2.5 selected. |
| Review composer-2.5-authored | .venv/bin/python scripts/dispatch_smart.py review --agent codex --mode danger --worktree <pr-slug> ([[feedback_codex_review_danger_mode]]) |
| Review codex-authored | Same as claude-authored (composer-2.5 cross-family) OR dispatch_smart review --agent agy --model gemini-3.1-pro-high if cursor unavailable. During Anthropic throttle window, claude headless is OFF rotation (Decision Card C, docs/decisions/2026-05-24-reviewer-routing-composer-2-5.md:11) — prefer codex / agy (Claude tier). Post-throttle, dispatch_smart review --agent claude is a documented Gemini-503 fallback ([[feedback_headless_claude_gemini_fallback]]). |
| Review agy-authored | .venv/bin/python scripts/dispatch_smart.py review --agent codex (different family). |
After R1, if NEEDS_CHANGES, dispatch the original author for a fix-pass, then re-run review (R2). On APPROVE/APPROVE_WITH_NITS, merge (orchestrator-driven; cursor does NOT self-merge per session-51 directive).
References
