tooluniverse-self-review

name

tooluniverse-self-review

description

Review existing work against the user's actual goal and surface evidence-backed strengths, gaps, risks, and next fixes. Use when asked to eval, evaluate, review, assess, or check current/this/my/our work; decide whether a task is complete; build a definition-of-done checklist or rubric; or perform grading, LLM-as-judge, Qworld, or RET evaluation. Treat plain eval/review requests as qualitative: resolve "current work" from the conversation, artifacts, files, or diff, and never assign numeric scores unless the user explicitly requests scores, grades, points, ratings, weighted criteria, Qworld, or RET. Do not use for implementing automated eval suites, tests, graders, or benchmarks.

Self-Review: Understand the Target, Then Review

Review the actual work the user means against the goal it was meant to satisfy. Default to a concise qualitative assessment. Scoring and the full Qworld Recursive Expansion Tree (RET) are opt-in.

Non-Negotiable Rules

1. Do not confuse the evaluation request with the evaluated task. In requests such as "eval current work", that sentence is an instruction to review. The task being judged is the preceding user goal; the work is the current result, implementation, draft, plan, or progress.
2. Do not equate eval with scoring. Eval, evaluate, review, assess, and check mean qualitative review unless the user explicitly asks for a score, grade, rating, points, weighted rubric, Qworld, RET, or a numeric scale.
3. Do not invent work to review. Inspect the conversation and available artifacts. If evidence is unavailable, say what could not be verified.
4. Do not expose process by default. Keep scenario expansion, perspective generation, and rubric construction internal unless the user asked for those artifacts.
5. Review against the user's goal, not a generic quality template. Derive the relevant checks from the request, stated constraints, acceptance criteria, and risks.