원클릭으로 Manus에서 모든 스킬 실행

rl-review

스타3

포크1

업데이트2026년 7월 8일 17:17

Observe what the user actually did — from whatever evidence they provide (a report in their words, a file or export they point to, a screenshot, a paste, a link) plus the AI's own work records — and judge it against a life-harness goal's action plan and success criteria and the user's philosophy — honestly, not as a cheerleader — then log what happened into the action file and refine. Use when the user runs /rl-review, reports what they did / achieved, points at activity data to assess, or wants an honest check on progress over a time window. Reads goals/, actions/, philosophy/, and any AI work records under work/; the activity evidence comes from the source the user names; writes to actions/ and goals/.

설치

Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.

Manus에서 실행

출처

rn7s2

rn7s2/life-harness

GitHub 저장소 열기 Creator 저장소 보기

다운로드

Manus에서 실행

rl-review — observe the evidence, then tell the truth

This is the observe → reason turn of the loop. The user did things — on the computer, in the world, or both — and this skill holds them against the goal's timed steps, its success criteria, and their philosophy, then logs an honest verdict into the action file. It is explicitly not a cheerleader: take the user's account however they show it, hold it against their own plan, goals, and philosophy, and tell them where they diverge — kindly, specifically, no spin.

How the evidence arrives is the user's choice, not a fixed pipeline: they can tell you, or point you at an export, a screenshot, a log, a file, a paste, or a link. Take whatever they provide and measure it against the plan.

Input

Whatever the user typed after /rl-review is a seed, not a strict argument: a goal and/or window, a report of what happened, a pointer to evidence, or nothing → ask which goal, over what window, and how they'll show what they did.

Steps

Locate the workspace (see rl-init conventions); if none is found, tell the user to run /rl-init and stop.
Load the standard to judge against. Read the target goal under goals/open/, its action file actions/open/<slug>.md, and all of philosophy/. Pull the goal's success criteria and the plan's timed steps verbatim, and note from "How progress is observed" how each was to be evidenced. Scan work/open/ and work/closed/ for any task.md whose goal:/action: points here: steps the user delegated to the AI are evidenced by that record, not the user's report — read it, and don't credit the user with the AI's work. The last ## Log entry's timestamp is the default start of this review's window.
Fix the time window. Confirm start and end to the minute where it matters, each with offset + IANA zone. If the user said "this week", state the concrete window; if they changed timezones mid-window, note it.
Take in the evidence. Read (or ask for) whichever source the user is giving — a direct report, a file/export on disk, or a paste/link (fetch it if you can; if not, say so and ask for the content). Combine sources if offered. Pull out concrete, checkable facts, not a vibe: what got done, how much / how often / when, the measurable outcome, what got in the way. Push gently past "it went okay" to specifics, but take a report at face value — you're not interrogating — and record what was actually claimed, noting where the user is unsure rather than rounding up. If no usable evidence is offered for a step, don't fabricate it — ask for a source or record the step unverified. Sensitive data: exports and screenshots may hold passwords or private messages — use them only to assess this goal, never surface secrets in the log, and summarise ("~2h in the editor on the project repo") rather than quoting raw captures.
Assess objectively, step and criterion by criterion. For each, judge done / partial / not done (or met / partial / not met) and cite the specific evidence — user-did steps from the user's evidence, AI-did steps from the work/ record. Hold steps to their time constraint (a "Mon–Fri, 2h before noon" step done twice, late, is partial — say why). Distinguish what the evidence shows from what it can't; note gaps instead of filling them with optimism.
Check philosophy, not just the number. Did the way the user acted honour their values? Moving toward a goal by violating a principle is worth naming; so is honouring the philosophy while missing the number.
Propose refinements when the evidence calls for it. Suggest concrete changes — sharpen a vague criterion, adjust an unrealistic/too-easy target, re-plan a step that isn't working, split or retire a goal, flag a philosophy/goal tension. Recommend with reasons; the user decides. Route criterion changes to /rl-goal, step changes to /rl-plan. If all criteria are met, say so and propose marking the goal accomplished.
Log the verdict into the action file. No separate review file — append one entry to ## Log of actions/open/<slug>.md, tick/adjust the affected Plan checkboxes, and bump updated. The entry is delta-only (what changed since the last entry — the criteria and plan already hold current truth) and budgeted (a heading line + ≤5 one-sentence bullets; no paragraphs or numbered sub-lists; one load-bearing "Philosophy check" line). Timestamps per the workspace convention. Then keep the last ~3 entries in ## Log; move older ones verbatim to actions/history/<slug>.md (append-only, not auto-loaded) with a one-line pointer. Shape:
```
YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM ±HH:MM (Zone/Name) — [review] — window <start> to <end> — source: <how evidence was provided>
- Step / criterion — done | partial | not done — <specific evidence, one line>
- Philosophy check: <did the way they acted honour their values?>
- Verdict & refinements: <honest bottom line; any proposed goal/action change>
```
Update the goal, and close if reached. Append a one-sentence dated line to the goal's ## Notes / history (rolling older entries to goals/history/<slug>.md), and rewrite — don't append an aside to — any criterion this review changes. If all criteria are met and the user agrees, set status: accomplished and run the full close sweep (rl-init → Closing a goal), not just the goal and action files: flip the action file (and any open work/ task serving this goal) to done, move goal + action + those work folders to closed/, and repoint every cross-reference (actions:, goal:, work goal:/action:) from open/ to closed/. Then hand back to /rl-goal or /rl-plan if refinements were accepted, or return to acting.

이 저장소의 다른 Skills

같은 저장소

rl-goal

rn7s2/life-harness

Discuss a goal with the user and write it down in the life-harness workspace, with clear checkable success criteria, consistent with their philosophy and existing goals. Use when the user runs /rl-goal, states a goal they want to set (e.g. "spend two focused hours a day building my side project"), names an existing goal to refine, or asks what to pursue next. Reads philosophy/ and goals/; writes to goals/open/ and goals/closed/.

2026-07-083

rl-init

rn7s2/life-harness

Set up (or repair) the life-harness workspace in the current folder — the philosophy/, goals/, actions/, and work/ directories plus the conventions the other rl- skills rely on. Run this once, first, before rl-philosophy, rl-goal, rl-plan, rl-work, or rl-review. Use when the user runs /rl-init, or asks to initialize, set up, bootstrap, or scaffold life-harness / a life workspace.

2026-07-083

rl-work

rn7s2/life-harness

Execute concrete tasks the user delegates to the AI — the "act" arm of the life-harness loop, done on the computer — grounded in their philosophy and goals, with the task brief and every artifact kept in the same repo under work/ so this and future agents inherit full context. Use when the user runs /rl-work, hands over a task to do, or asks the AI to build, research, draft, or fix something toward a goal. Reads philosophy/, goals/, actions/; writes to work/open/ and work/closed/.

2026-07-083

rl-philosophy

rn7s2/life-harness

Add or refine the user's personal philosophy and values in the life-harness workspace — the lens that every goal and review is checked against. Use when the user runs /rl-philosophy, states a principle or value in their own words, names a topic to think through (e.g. "how I want to spend my mornings"), or asks to capture/refine what they believe or how they want to decide. Writes to philosophy/.

2026-07-083

rl-plan

rn7s2/life-harness

Turn a life-harness goal into concrete, doable, timed actions and write them down as the goal's action plan, consistent with the user's philosophy. Use when the user runs /rl-plan, asks how to actually reach a goal, wants to plan or break down a goal into steps, or names an existing action plan to refine. Reads goals/ and philosophy/; writes one action file per goal to actions/open/. The plan is later observed against by rl-review.

2026-07-083

name	rl-review
description	Observe what the user actually did — from whatever evidence they provide (a report in their words, a file or export they point to, a screenshot, a paste, a link) plus the AI's own work records — and judge it against a life-harness goal's action plan and success criteria and the user's philosophy — honestly, not as a cheerleader — then log what happened into the action file and refine. Use when the user runs /rl-review, reports what they did / achieved, points at activity data to assess, or wants an honest check on progress over a time window. Reads goals/, actions/, philosophy/, and any AI work records under work/; the activity evidence comes from the source the user names; writes to actions/ and goals/.
metadata	{"loop":"life-harness","step":"4-review"}

rl-review — observe the evidence, then tell the truth

Input

Steps

Locate the workspace (see rl-init conventions); if none is found, tell the user to run /rl-init and stop.
Load the standard to judge against. Read the target goal under goals/open/, its action file actions/open/<slug>.md, and all of philosophy/. Pull the goal's success criteria and the plan's timed steps verbatim, and note from "How progress is observed" how each was to be evidenced. Scan work/open/ and work/closed/ for any task.md whose goal:/action: points here: steps the user delegated to the AI are evidenced by that record, not the user's report — read it, and don't credit the user with the AI's work. The last ## Log entry's timestamp is the default start of this review's window.
Fix the time window. Confirm start and end to the minute where it matters, each with offset + IANA zone. If the user said "this week", state the concrete window; if they changed timezones mid-window, note it.
Take in the evidence. Read (or ask for) whichever source the user is giving — a direct report, a file/export on disk, or a paste/link (fetch it if you can; if not, say so and ask for the content). Combine sources if offered. Pull out concrete, checkable facts, not a vibe: what got done, how much / how often / when, the measurable outcome, what got in the way. Push gently past "it went okay" to specifics, but take a report at face value — you're not interrogating — and record what was actually claimed, noting where the user is unsure rather than rounding up. If no usable evidence is offered for a step, don't fabricate it — ask for a source or record the step unverified. Sensitive data: exports and screenshots may hold passwords or private messages — use them only to assess this goal, never surface secrets in the log, and summarise ("~2h in the editor on the project repo") rather than quoting raw captures.
Assess objectively, step and criterion by criterion. For each, judge done / partial / not done (or met / partial / not met) and cite the specific evidence — user-did steps from the user's evidence, AI-did steps from the work/ record. Hold steps to their time constraint (a "Mon–Fri, 2h before noon" step done twice, late, is partial — say why). Distinguish what the evidence shows from what it can't; note gaps instead of filling them with optimism.
Check philosophy, not just the number. Did the way the user acted honour their values? Moving toward a goal by violating a principle is worth naming; so is honouring the philosophy while missing the number.
Propose refinements when the evidence calls for it. Suggest concrete changes — sharpen a vague criterion, adjust an unrealistic/too-easy target, re-plan a step that isn't working, split or retire a goal, flag a philosophy/goal tension. Recommend with reasons; the user decides. Route criterion changes to /rl-goal, step changes to /rl-plan. If all criteria are met, say so and propose marking the goal accomplished.
Log the verdict into the action file. No separate review file — append one entry to ## Log of actions/open/<slug>.md, tick/adjust the affected Plan checkboxes, and bump updated. The entry is delta-only (what changed since the last entry — the criteria and plan already hold current truth) and budgeted (a heading line + ≤5 one-sentence bullets; no paragraphs or numbered sub-lists; one load-bearing "Philosophy check" line). Timestamps per the workspace convention. Then keep the last ~3 entries in ## Log; move older ones verbatim to actions/history/<slug>.md (append-only, not auto-loaded) with a one-line pointer. Shape:
```
YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM ±HH:MM (Zone/Name) — [review] — window <start> to <end> — source: <how evidence was provided>
- Step / criterion — done | partial | not done — <specific evidence, one line>
- Philosophy check: <did the way they acted honour their values?>
- Verdict & refinements: <honest bottom line; any proposed goal/action change>
```
Update the goal, and close if reached. Append a one-sentence dated line to the goal's ## Notes / history (rolling older entries to goals/history/<slug>.md), and rewrite — don't append an aside to — any criterion this review changes. If all criteria are met and the user agrees, set status: accomplished and run the full close sweep (rl-init → Closing a goal), not just the goal and action files: flip the action file (and any open work/ task serving this goal) to done, move goal + action + those work folders to closed/, and repoint every cross-reference (actions:, goal:, work goal:/action:) from open/ to closed/. Then hand back to /rl-goal or /rl-plan if refinements were accepted, or return to acting.