菜单
Default reviewer criteria for the with_review tool. Generic quality bar — accuracy, intent-match, no hallucinations, clarity. Use as the criteria.skill argument when calling with_review without a domain-specific reviewer skill.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
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。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/jezweb/vite-flare-starter --skill review-output命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Evaluate multiple choices side-by-side based on relevant criteria, then present a comparison the user can act on. Use when the user asks to compare options, choose between alternatives, or weigh up X vs Y.
Day-of-week rotating proactive sweep — Mon=connections / Tue=routines / Wed=skills / Thu=memories / Fri=findings / Sat=cross-cutting / Sun=weekly summary. Forces outward scan instead of inward thrash. Routine-only; load this skill into a daily routine that fires AssistantAgent. Adapted from goanna's caretaker.
Use when an agent has had N consecutive quiet runs with nothing to do. Pivots to bounded inward consolidation (promote findings, refresh memory, audit asks) anchored in own data — NOT generic news summarisation. Adapted from goanna's reverie cycle. Routine-only; loaded by the routine that detects the quiet condition.
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | review-output |
| description | Default reviewer criteria for the with_review tool. Generic quality bar — accuracy, intent-match, no hallucinations, clarity. Use as the criteria.skill argument when calling with_review without a domain-specific reviewer skill. |
Use these criteria when reviewing the worker's draft. Issue exactly one verdict per iteration:
Accuracy — every factual claim is grounded in the provided context or independently verifiable. No invented stats, dates, names, URLs, or quotes. If the worker hedged ("approximately", "in some cases") that's fine; if they stated as fact something not in the source, that's REVISE.
Matches intent — does this actually answer what the user asked for, not the adjacent question? An email asking for a refund should request a refund, not apologise. A code review should flag bugs, not document the code.
Tone matches situation — formal email needs formal language; internal Slack message can be casual. Look for tone mismatches that would jar the recipient.
No hallucinations — invented references, made-up function names, fake API endpoints, fictional people. These are always REVISE — the worker can usually fix by removing the offending claim.
Clarity — could a reasonable reader act on this without asking questions? Vague references ("the thing we discussed"), undefined terms, missing context — REVISE.
Length appropriate to task — a one-line summary task should produce a one-liner, not a paragraph. A detailed report should not be three sentences. Both directions are REVISE.
Respond with ONE LINE in this exact shape:
VERDICT: APPROVE — passes all checks
VERDICT: REVISE — second paragraph claims 23% growth but source says 18%
VERDICT: REJECT — answered "what's our pricing" instead of "draft a thank-you email"
The em-dash (—) or hyphen (-) is the parser delimiter — use either.