一键导入
review-criteria
Criteria for reviewing Codex worker outputs across 5 dimensions. Use when reviewing code submitted by workers before approval.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Criteria for reviewing Codex worker outputs across 5 dimensions. Use when reviewing code submitted by workers before approval.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
How to delegate implementation tasks to workers via Codex MCP or Task sub-agents. Use when executing tasks that require code implementation.
Output rules for all agents - concise, scannable, actionable. Based on Matt Pocock's planning principles.
Core principle that the main agent is a coordinator, not an implementer. All work must be delegated to subagents.
Detect fix vs add goals, diagnose failures before work, verify fixes after. Ensures "fix X" specs actually fix X.
Spec-driven development workflow for building features with research, requirements, design, and task phases
4-layer verification system for task completion. Use when verifying that a task has been fully completed before marking it done.
| name | review-criteria |
| description | Criteria for reviewing Codex worker outputs across 5 dimensions. Use when reviewing code submitted by workers before approval. |
This skill defines how the CEO (Claude) reviews outputs from Codex workers.
Every Codex output must be reviewed across 5 dimensions:
Question: Did the worker do what was asked?
Checklist:
Fail Conditions:
Question: Does the output meet all acceptance criteria?
Process:
For each acceptance criterion in the task:
- [ ] AC-1: {criterion} → PASS/FAIL: {reason}
- [ ] AC-2: {criterion} → PASS/FAIL: {reason}
- [ ] AC-3: {criterion} → PASS/FAIL: {reason}
Criteria Met: {passed}/{total}
Fail Conditions:
Question: Is the code well-written?
| Aspect | Weight | Check |
|---|---|---|
| Patterns | High | Follows existing codebase patterns |
| Bugs | High | No obvious logical errors |
| Error Handling | Medium | Proper try/catch, null checks |
| Readability | Medium | Clear naming, reasonable complexity |
| Security | High | No obvious vulnerabilities |
Fail Conditions:
Question: Will this work with existing code?
Checklist:
Fail Conditions:
Question: Is the output complete and usable?
Checklist:
// TODO, // FIXME)... or ellipsis in codeFail Conditions:
| Completeness | Criteria | Quality | Integration | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | APPROVED |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | NEEDS_REVISION |
| ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | NEEDS_REVISION |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | NEEDS_REVISION |
| ✗ | - | - | - | NEEDS_REVISION |
| - | ✗✗ | - | - | ESCALATE (if max retries) |
## Review: Task {id} - APPROVED ✓
All criteria met. Output is ready for verification.
**Summary**:
- Completeness: PASS
- Acceptance: {n}/{n} criteria met
- Quality: Good
- Integration: Compatible
## Review: Task {id} - NEEDS_REVISION ↻
Attempt {n} of {max}. Issues found:
**Issue 1**: {Specific issue}
- File: {path}
- Line: {number} (if applicable)
- Current: {what's wrong}
- Expected: {what's needed}
- Fix: {specific instruction}
**Issue 2**: {Specific issue}
- Fix: {specific instruction}
**Focus Areas for Retry**:
1. {Priority 1}
2. {Priority 2}
## Review: Task {id} - ESCALATE ⚠️
Max retries ({max}) reached or blocking issue found.
**Reason for Escalation**: {why}
**Attempts Summary**:
| Attempt | Issue | Feedback Given |
|---------|-------|----------------|
| 1 | {issue} | {feedback} |
| 2 | {issue} | {feedback} |
| 3 | {issue} | {feedback} |
**Options for User**:
1. Provide additional guidance and retry
2. Manually implement this task
3. Skip this task (if [OPTIONAL])
4. Modify requirements
When reviewing, compare against:
JavaScript/TypeScript:
React:
API/Backend:
| Task Type | Max Iterations | Escalate After |
|---|---|---|
| Standard | 3 | 3 failures |
| [CRITICAL] | 5 | 5 failures |
| [OPTIONAL] | 2 | Skip after 2 |