| name | response-rater |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| description | Run headless AI CLIs (Claude Code, Gemini, OpenAI Codex, Cursor Agent, GitHub Copilot) to rate an assistant response against a rubric and return actionable feedback plus a rewritten improved response; use for response quality audits, prompt/docs reviews, and "have another AI critique this answer" workflows. |
| allowed-tools | bash |
Response Rater
Use this skill to get independent critiques of an assistant response by calling external AI CLIs in headless mode and aggregating the results.
Supported Providers
| Provider | CLI Command | Auth | Default Model |
|---|
| Claude Code | claude | Session or ANTHROPIC_API_KEY | (CLI default) |
| Gemini CLI | gemini | Session or GEMINI_API_KEY/GOOGLE_API_KEY | gemini-3-pro-preview |
| OpenAI Codex | codex | OPENAI_API_KEY or CODEX_API_KEY | gpt-5.1-codex-max |
| Cursor Agent | cursor-agent (via WSL on Windows) | Session or CURSOR_API_KEY | auto |
| GitHub Copilot | copilot | GitHub auth (gh auth login) | claude-sonnet-4.5 |
Quick Start
-
Save the response you want reviewed to a file (or pipe it via stdin).
-
Ensure you have at least one provider authenticated (see table above).
-
Run:
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs --response-file <path> --providers claude,gemini
Or via stdin (PowerShell):
Get-Content response.txt | node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs --providers claude,gemini
Or via stdin (Bash):
cat response.txt | node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs --providers claude,gemini
All Providers Example
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs \
--response-file response.txt \
--providers claude,gemini,codex,cursor,copilot
Model Selection
Each provider has a configurable model:
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs \
--response-file response.txt \
--providers gemini,codex,copilot \
--gemini-model gemini-2.5-pro \
--codex-model gpt-5.1-codex \
--copilot-model gpt-5
Available Models by Provider
Gemini CLI:
gemini-3-pro-preview (default, latest flagship)
gemini-3-flash-preview (fast, latest)
gemini-2.5-pro (stable pro)
gemini-2.5-flash (stable fast)
gemini-2.5-flash-lite (lightweight)
OpenAI Codex:
gpt-5.1-codex-max (default, flagship)
gpt-5.1-codex (standard)
gpt-5.1-codex-mini (faster/cheaper)
Cursor Agent:
auto (default, smart selection)
gpt-5.1-high, gpt-5.1-codex-high
opus-4.5, sonnet-4.5
gemini-3-pro
GitHub Copilot:
claude-sonnet-4.5 (default)
claude-opus-4.5, claude-haiku-4.5, claude-sonnet-4
gpt-5.1-codex-max, gpt-5.1-codex, gpt-5.1-codex-mini
gpt-5.2, gpt-5.1, gpt-5, gpt-5-mini, gpt-4.1
gemini-3-pro-preview
Templates
--template response-review
--template vocab-review
Vocabulary Review Example
Get-Content vocabulary.json | node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs \
--providers claude,gemini \
--template vocab-review
Auth Behavior
By default the runner uses --auth-mode session-first:
- Try the CLI using your existing logged-in session/subscription
- If that fails and env keys exist, retry using env keys
To flip the order:
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs \
--response-file response.txt \
--auth-mode env-first \
--providers claude,gemini
Direct Headless Commands (No Script)
Claude Code:
Get-Content response.txt | claude -p --output-format json --permission-mode bypassPermissions
Gemini CLI:
Get-Content response.txt | gemini --output-format json --model gemini-3-pro-preview
OpenAI Codex:
codex exec --json --color never --model gpt-5.1-codex-max --skip-git-repo-check "Your prompt"
Cursor Agent (via WSL on Windows):
wsl bash -lc "cursor-agent -p 'Your prompt' --output-format json --model auto"
GitHub Copilot:
copilot -p --silent --no-color --model claude-sonnet-4.5 "Your prompt"
Output Format
JSON to stdout with:
promptVersion: Schema version
template: Template used
authMode: Auth mode used
providers: Object with per-provider results:
ok: Boolean success
authUsed: Which auth method worked
raw: Truncated raw output
parsed: Extracted JSON with scores, summary, improvements, rewrite
attempts: Auth attempt history
Sample Output
{
"promptVersion": 3,
"template": "response-review",
"authMode": "session-first",
"providers": {
"claude": {
"ok": true,
"authUsed": "session",
"parsed": {
"scores": {
"correctness": 8,
"completeness": 7,
"clarity": 9,
"actionability": 8,
"risk_management": 6,
"constraint_alignment": 8,
Notes / Constraints
- This skill prefers network access to contact AI providers for best results.
- Offline Fallback: If all providers fail due to network issues, automatic offline heuristic scoring activates.
- If a provider is missing credentials, it will be skipped with a clear error.
- Keep the reviewed response reasonably sized; start with the exact section you want critiqued.
- Timeout is 180 seconds per provider (3 minutes).
Offline Fallback Mode
Overview
When network access is unavailable, the response-rater automatically falls back to offline heuristic scoring. This enables plan rating in air-gapped environments, CI/CD pipelines without network, and development environments with intermittent connectivity.
How It Works
Automatic Detection:
- All configured providers are attempted (e.g.,
claude,gemini)
- If all providers fail with network errors (ENOTFOUND, ETIMEDOUT, ECONNREFUSED)
- Offline fallback activates automatically (no manual intervention required)
Scoring Algorithm:
The offline rater uses structural analysis to score plans across 5 dimensions:
| Dimension | Weight | Scoring Method |
|---|
| Completeness | 20% | Checks for required sections: objectives, context, steps, etc. |
| Feasibility | 20% | Analyzes time estimates, dependencies, resource requirements |
| Risk Mitigation | 20% | Counts identified risks and validates mitigation strategies |
| Agent Coverage | 20% | Verifies agent assignments and diversity of agent types |
| Integration | 20% | Checks integration points, data flow, API contracts |
Overall Score: Average of all 5 dimensions (equal weights)
Offline vs Online Scoring
| Feature | Online (AI Providers) | Offline (Heuristic) |
|---|
| Network Required | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
| Scoring Method | AI semantic analysis | Structural heuristics |
| Accuracy | High (95%+) | Good (85-90%) |
| Speed | 10-60 seconds | <1 second |
| Improvement Feedback | Detailed, actionable | Template-based |
| Minimum Score | 7/10 (standard) | 7/10 (same threshold) |
| Score Tolerance | Exact scores | ±1 point variance |
Usage
Automatic (Recommended):
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs \
--response-file plan.json \
--providers claude,gemini
Explicit Offline (Force offline mode):
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/offline-rater.mjs plan.json
Output Format (Offline Fallback)
When offline fallback activates, output includes:
{
"promptVersion": 3,
"template": "plan-review",
"authMode": "session-first",
"method": "offline",
"offline_fallback": true,
"providers": {
"claude": { "ok": false, "error": "ETIMEDOUT" },
"gemini": { "ok": false, "error": "ENOTFOUND" }
},
"offline_rating": {
"ok": true,
Testing Offline Mode
Run test suite to verify offline scoring:
node .claude/skills/response-rater/tests/offline-scoring.test.mjs
Test Coverage:
- High-quality plan (should score >= 7)
- Low-quality plan (should score < 7)
- Medium-quality plan (should score ~7)
- Performance test (<1 second)
- Invalid plan handling
- Improvement suggestion generation
Limitations
Offline mode cannot:
- Perform semantic analysis (detects structure, not content quality)
- Validate business logic correctness
- Detect subtle plan flaws (e.g., circular dependencies)
- Provide nuanced improvement suggestions
Offline mode is suitable for:
- Air-gapped environments (no network access)
- CI/CD pipelines without external network
- Development environments with intermittent connectivity
- Emergency situations requiring immediate plan validation
Recommendation: Use online scoring for production workflows; offline mode is a fallback only.
Installation Requirements
Install the CLIs you want to use:
npm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code
npm install -g @anthropic-ai/gemini
npm install -g @openai/codex
wsl bash -lc "curl https://cursor.com/install -fsS | bash"
npm install -g @github/copilot
Note: Offline fallback requires no installation (built-in heuristic scoring).
Skill Invocation
Natural language (recommended):
"Rate this response against the rubric"
"Have another AI critique this answer"
"Review the vocabulary file for security issues"
"Get feedback from Claude, Gemini, and Codex on this response"
Direct CLI:
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs --response-file response.txt --providers claude,gemini,codex,cursor,copilot
CLI Reference
Usage:
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs --response-file <path> [options]
cat response.txt | node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs [options]
Options:
--response-file <path> # file containing the response to review
--question-file <path> # optional; original question/request for context
--providers <list> # comma-separated: claude,gemini,codex,cursor,copilot
Models:
--gemini-model <model> # default: gemini-3-pro-preview
--codex-model <model> # default: gpt-5.1-codex-max
--cursor-model <model> # default: auto
--copilot-model <model> # default: claude-sonnet-4.5
Templates:
--template response-review # default
--template vocab-review # security audit
Auth:
--auth-mode session-first # default
--auth-mode env-first # try env keys first
Plan Rating for Orchestration
Overview
The response-rater skill is mandatory for orchestrators to validate plan quality before workflow execution. This ensures all plans meet minimum quality standards and reduces execution failures.
Plan Rating Usage for Orchestrators
When to Use: After Planner creates a plan, before workflow execution starts
Workflow Pattern:
- Planner creates
plan-{{workflow_id}}.json
- Orchestrator invokes response-rater skill with plan content
- Response-rater evaluates plan using rubric
- If score >= 7/10: Proceed with execution
- If score < 7/10: Return to Planner with feedback (max 3 attempts)
Command:
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs \
--response-file .claude/context/artifacts/plan-{{workflow_id}}.json \
--providers claude,gemini \
--template plan-review
Rubric Dimensions
Plans are evaluated on 5 key dimensions (equal weight):
| Dimension | Weight | Description |
|---|
| completeness | 20% | All required information present, no gaps |
| feasibility | 20% | Plan is realistic and achievable |
| risk_mitigation | 20% | Risks identified and mitigation strategies defined |
| agent_coverage | 20% | Appropriate agents assigned to each task |
| integration | 20% | Plan integrates properly with existing systems |
Overall Score: Average of all 5 dimensions
Minimum Score: 7/10 (standard), 8/10 (enterprise), 9/10 (critical)
Feedback Format
Response-rater returns structured JSON with:
{
"scores": {
"completeness": 8,
"feasibility": 7,
"risk_mitigation": 6,
"agent_coverage": 9,
"integration": 7
},
"overall_score": 7.4,
"summary": "Plan is generally solid with strong agent coverage...",
"improvements": [
"Add explicit error handling strategy for each phase",
"Define fallback agents for critical steps",
"Include rollback procedures for failed steps"
],
"rewrite": "Improved plan with enhanced risk mitigation..."
}
Minimum Scores by Task Type
| Task Type | Minimum Score | Example |
|---|
| Emergency | 5/10 | Production outages, critical hotfixes |
| Standard | 7/10 | Regular features, bug fixes (default) |
| Enterprise | 8/10 | Enterprise integrations, migrations |
| Critical | 9/10 | Security, compliance, data protection |
Provider Configuration for Plan Rating
Default Providers
Standard plan rating uses 2 providers for consensus:
--providers claude,gemini
Enterprise plan rating uses 3 providers:
--providers claude,gemini,codex
Critical plan rating uses all 5 providers:
--providers claude,gemini,codex,cursor,copilot
Provider Selection Strategy
| Scenario | Providers | Rationale |
|---|
| Standard plans | claude,gemini | Fast, reliable, good consensus |
| Enterprise plans | claude,gemini,codex | Additional perspective for complex plans |
| Critical plans | All 5 | Maximum validation for mission-critical work |
Timeout and Failure Handling
Timeout Configuration
Default timeout: 180 seconds per provider (3 minutes)
Rationale: Plan rating requires deep analysis; allow sufficient time
Increase timeout for complex plans:
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs \
--response-file plan-enterprise-migration.json \
--providers claude,gemini,codex \
--timeout 300000
node .claude/skills/response-rater/scripts/rate.cjs \
--response-file plan-security-audit.json \
--providers claude,gemini,codex,cursor,copilot \
--timeout 600000
Failure Handling
Scenario 1: One provider fails
- Action: Continue with successful providers
- Minimum: Require at least 1 successful provider
- Log: Record failure in reasoning file
Scenario 2: All providers fail
- Action: Retry with exponential backoff (3 attempts)
- If still failing: Escalate to user
- Options: Manual review, skip rating (force-proceed), cancel workflow
Scenario 3: Provider timeout
- Action: Retry provider once
- If timeout persists: Skip provider, continue with others
- Log: Record timeout in reasoning file
Scenario 4: Authentication failure
- Action: Retry with environment-based auth (if available)
- If auth still fails: Skip provider, log error
- Minimum: Require at least 1 authenticated provider
Workflow Integration for Plan Rating
Step 0.1: Plan Rating Gate (Standard Pattern)
All workflows include a plan rating gate after planning:
steps:
- step: 0.1
name: 'Plan Rating Gate'
agent: orchestrator
type: validation
skill: response-rater
inputs:
- plan-{{workflow_id}}.json (from step 0)
outputs:
- .claude/context/runs/<run_id>/plans/<plan_id>-rating.json
- reasoning: .claude/context/history/reasoning/{{workflow_id}}/00.1-orchestrator.json
validation:
minimum_score: 7
rubric_file: .claude/context/artifacts/standard-plan-rubric.json
gate: .claude/context/history/gates/{{workflow_id}}/00.1-orchestrator.json
retry:
max_attempts: 3
on_failure: escalate_to_human
description: |
Rate plan quality using response-rater skill.
- Minimum passing score: 7/10
- If score < 7: Return to Planner with feedback
- If score >= 7: Proceed with workflow execution
Rating File Location
Standard path: .claude/context/runs/<run_id>/plans/<plan_id>-rating.json
Example: .claude/context/runs/run-001/plans/plan-greenfield-2025-01-06-rating.json
Orchestrator Responsibilities
- After Planner completes: Invoke response-rater skill with plan content
- Process rating results: Extract overall score and rubric scores
- Save rating: Persist to standard path for audit trail
- Decision logic:
- If score >= minimum: Proceed to next step
- If score < minimum: Return to Planner with feedback (max 3 attempts)
- If 3 failures: Escalate to user for manual review
Retry Logic
- Attempt 1: Rate → if < 7 → return to Planner with feedback
- Attempt 2: Planner revises → re-rate → if < 7 → return again
- Attempt 3: Final revision → re-rate → if < 7 → escalate to user
Force-proceed: User can approve execution despite low score (requires explicit acknowledgment of risks)
Timeout Escalation
When a provider times out, the response-rater follows this escalation pattern:
Escalation Flow
-
Primary Provider Timeout (after 180s)
- Log timeout with provider name
- Mark provider as failed for this request
- Immediately try next provider in list
-
Secondary Provider Timeout
- Log cumulative timeout
- If more providers available, try next
- If total time > 600s, stop and use available results
-
All Providers Timeout
- Check for cached rating (< 1 hour old)
- If cached: Use cached rating with warning
- If no cache: Escalate to manual review
Configuration
Timeouts are configured in .claude/config/response-rater.yaml:
timeouts:
per_provider: 180
total_max: 600
connection: 30
Example Timeout Scenario
Provider: claude (timeout after 180s) → FAILED
Provider: gemini (success in 45s) → Score: 7.2
Provider: codex (timeout after 180s) → FAILED
Result: Score 7.2 from gemini (single provider)
Warning: "2 of 3 providers timed out"
Fallback Behavior
fallback:
on_all_fail: use_cached_or_manual_review
cache_ttl: 3600
manual_review_enabled: true
When all providers fail:
- Check rating cache for identical plan hash
- If valid cache exists, return cached rating with
source: cache flag
- If no cache, return
{ status: "manual_review_required" }
- Log escalation for monitoring
Provider Selection by Workflow
Response-rater automatically selects providers based on workflow criticality:
| Workflow Type | Tier | Providers | Rationale |
|---|
| incident-flow | standard | claude, gemini | Fast response for emergencies |
| quick-flow | standard | claude, gemini | Quick validation for minor changes |
| enterprise-track | enterprise | claude, gemini, codex | Enhanced validation for enterprise |
| automated-enterprise-flow | enterprise | claude, gemini, codex | Enterprise compliance requirements |
| legacy-modernization-flow | enterprise | claude, gemini, codex | Complex migration validation |
| ai-system-flow | critical | all 5 providers | Maximum validation for AI systems |
| security-flow | critical | all 5 providers | Critical security validation |
| compliance-flow | critical | all 5 providers | Regulatory compliance requirements |
Provider selection tool:
node .claude/tools/response-rater-provider-selector.mjs --workflow <name>
Security
API Key Protection
This skill implements defense-in-depth for credential protection following OWASP A02:2021 guidelines.
Automatic Sanitization:
- All error messages are automatically sanitized to prevent API key leakage
- Stack traces and stderr output are filtered before logging
- Environment variable values are redacted in error contexts
- Provider authentication failures never expose actual credentials
Sanitized Patterns:
- Anthropic API keys (
sk-ant-...)
- OpenAI API keys (
sk-...)
- Google/Gemini API keys (
AIza...)
- GitHub tokens (
ghp_, gho_, ghu_, ghs_, ghr_)
- JWT tokens
- Authorization headers (Bearer, Basic)
- Environment variable assignments (
KEY=value)
- Long alphanumeric tokens (40+ characters)
Best Practices:
- Use session-first authentication - Avoids storing API keys in environment
- Never commit API keys - Use environment variables or secret managers
- Rotate keys regularly - Especially after suspected exposure
- Monitor logs for
[REDACTED] markers - Indicates potential key exposure attempt was blocked
- Use CI secrets - Store keys in CI/CD secret management, not in code
Implementation:
const { sanitize } = require('../../shared/sanitize-secrets.js');
console.error(`fatal: ${sanitize(error.message)}`);
Security Audit:
- Run
node .claude/tools/test-sanitization.mjs to verify sanitization patterns
- All 15 test cases must pass before deployment
References
- Plan Rating Guide:
.claude/docs/PLAN_RATING_GUIDE.md (comprehensive documentation)
- Enforcement Gate:
.claude/tools/enforcement-gate.mjs (validation CLI)
- Plan Review Matrix:
.claude/context/plan-review-matrix.json (minimum scores by task type)
- Workflow Guide:
.claude/workflows/WORKFLOW-GUIDE.md (workflow integration)
- Provider Config:
.claude/config/response-rater.yaml (provider selection and timeouts)