| name | earos-remediate |
| description | Generate a prioritized improvement plan from an EAROS evaluation. Triggers on "how do I fix this", "improve this artifact", "remediation plan", "how to pass EAROS", "fix the assessment", "improvement plan", "what's wrong with my architecture", "how to get a better score", or any request to improve an artifact based on evaluation results. |
SKILL: earos-remediate
Generate a prioritized, actionable improvement plan from an EAROS evaluation record.
References
- Patterns and before/after examples:
references/remediation-patterns.md
- Output template:
references/output-template.md
- Rubric files: discovered at runtime via
earos.manifest.yaml
- Evaluation schema:
standard/schemas/evaluation.schema.json
Workflow
Step 1 — Load the evaluation record
Ask the user to provide the evaluation record (file path or paste content).
- Read the file if a path is given.
- Identify:
rubric_id, profile_id, overlay_ids, status, all criterion scores, gate results, dimension scores, and the narrative fields (evidence, rationale, actions).
- If the record is missing required fields, note which ones and proceed with what is available.
Step 2 — Load the rubric files
Read earos.manifest.yaml to locate the rubric(s) referenced by the evaluation record.
For each referenced rubric (core + profile + overlays):
- Load the YAML file.
- Extract for every criterion:
id, question, gate, scoring_guide, examples.good, examples.bad, anti_patterns, remediation_hints, decision_tree.
This is the authoritative source for what "good" looks like. Do not rely on training data for rubric content.
Step 3 — Classify and prioritize issues
Read references/remediation-patterns.md before this step.
Triage every criterion that scored below 3 (or triggered a gate failure):
Tier 1 — Blockers (fix these first; evaluation cannot pass until resolved)
- Any criterion with a
critical gate that failed (status = Reject)
- Any criterion with a
major gate that scored < 2 (caps status at Conditional Pass)
Tier 2 — High Impact (most likely to change the overall status)
- Criteria scored 0 or 1 (Absent / Weak)
- Criteria in high-weight dimensions (weight >= 1.1)
- The criterion closest to tipping a dimension above the 2.0 floor threshold
Tier 3 — Incremental (polish, turn Conditional Pass into Pass)
- Criteria scored 2 (Partial) — especially those where the gap to 3 is narrow
- Dimension average between 2.4 and 3.2 (one bump in a criterion could cross the Pass threshold)
Tier 4 — N/A review (challenge whether N/A was correctly applied)
- Any criterion marked N/A — check the justification is sound
Within each tier, order by: gate severity descending → weight descending → score ascending.
Step 4 — Generate remediation items
For each prioritized criterion, produce a structured remediation entry using the rubric's own content:
Criterion: <id> — <question>
Current score: <score>/4 Gate: <severity or none>
What score 3 looks like: <scoring_guide["3"]>
What score 4 looks like: <scoring_guide["4"]>
Good example: <examples.good[0]>
Anti-patterns to avoid: <anti_patterns>
Decision path: <decision_tree excerpt>
Specific fixes:
- <remediation_hints item 1>
- <remediation_hints item 2>
- [context-specific fix derived from the evaluation's rationale]
Effort estimate: <Low | Medium | High> (see references/remediation-patterns.md)
Derive effort from the gap and criterion complexity:
- Score 3→4: Low (usually evidence and cross-referencing)
- Score 2→3: Medium (content gaps to fill)
- Score 0–1→3: High (structural rework required)
- Gate failure on critical: High (non-negotiable)
Step 5 — Compute projected impact
After fixing Tier 1 and Tier 2 items, estimate what the new status would be:
- Recalculate dimension averages assuming target scores (conservative: assume score reaches the minimum needed, not the maximum possible).
- Check gate conditions.
- State the projected status: Pass / Conditional Pass / Rework Required.
If the current status is Reject due to a critical gate, state clearly: fixing the gate failure is the prerequisite for any other improvements to matter.
Step 6 — Output the remediation plan
Read references/output-template.md before producing output.
Structure:
- Summary (current status, projected status after fixes, number of issues by tier)
- Tier 1 — Blockers (gate failures)
- Tier 2 — High Impact items
- Tier 3 — Incremental improvements
- Tier 4 — N/A review (if any)
- Quick wins (Tier 3 items that are Low effort — do these first)
- Next step: offer to run
earos-assess on the revised artifact
Operating Principles
- Rubric-anchored. Every fix recommendation must cite the rubric's own
scoring_guide, examples.good, or remediation_hints. Do not invent criteria or guidance not in the rubric.
- Triage ruthlessly. A plan with 15 equal-priority items is useless. The output must be prioritized so the architect knows exactly where to start.
- Feasibility-aware. Flag if a Tier 1 item requires organizational change (e.g., a governance decision) vs. document change.
- Evidence anchored. Where the evaluation record includes evidence anchors, quote them back to the architect so they know exactly what text triggered the low score.
- Status awareness. If the artifact is already a Conditional Pass and the architect's goal is Pass, focus on Tier 3. If it is Reject, Tier 1 is the only thing that matters.