response-rater
31
总安装量
3
周安装量
#12040
全站排名
安装命令
npx skills add https://github.com/oimiragieo/agent-studio --skill response-rater
Agent 安装分布
github-copilot
2
mcpjam
1
claude-code
1
junie
1
windsurf
1
zencoder
1
Skill 文档
Response Rater Skill
Step 1: Define Rating Rubric
Use appropriate rubric for the content type:
For Plans:
| Dimension | Weight | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Completeness | 20% | All required sections present |
| Feasibility | 20% | Plan is realistic and achievable |
| Risk Mitigation | 20% | Risks identified with mitigations |
| Agent Coverage | 20% | Appropriate agents assigned |
| Integration | 20% | Fits with existing systems |
For Responses:
| Dimension | Weight | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness | 25% | Technically accurate |
| Completeness | 25% | Addresses all requirements |
| Clarity | 25% | Easy to understand |
| Actionability | 25% | Provides clear next steps |
Step 2: Evaluate Each Dimension
Score each dimension 1-10:
## Dimension Scores
### Completeness: 8/10
- Has objectives, steps, and timeline
- Missing risk assessment section
### Feasibility: 7/10
- Most steps are achievable
- Step 3 timeline is aggressive
### Risk Mitigation: 5/10
- Only 1 risk identified
- No mitigation strategies
### Agent Coverage: 9/10
- All steps have assigned agents
- Good agent-task matching
### Integration: 8/10
- Uses existing APIs
- Minor compatibility concerns
Step 3: Calculate Overall Score
Average the weighted scores:
Overall = (8Ã0.2) + (7Ã0.2) + (5Ã0.2) + (9Ã0.2) + (8Ã0.2) = 7.4/10
Step 4: Generate Recommendations
Provide actionable improvements:
## Recommendations
### High Priority
1. Add risk assessment section with 3-5 risks
2. Include mitigation strategies for each risk
### Medium Priority
3. Extend Step 3 timeline by 2 days
4. Add fallback plan for external API dependency
### Low Priority
5. Add success metrics for each step
Step 5: Make Pass/Fail Decision
Apply minimum score thresholds:
| Task Type | Minimum Score |
|---|---|
| Standard | 7/10 |
| Enterprise | 8/10 |
| Critical | 9/10 |
## Decision
**Score**: 7.4/10
**Threshold**: 7/10 (Standard)
**Result**: PASS â
Plan approved with recommendations for improvement.
</execution_process>
<best_practices>
- Consistent Rubrics: Use same dimensions for comparable content
- Clear Thresholds: Define pass/fail criteria upfront
- Actionable Feedback: Provide specific improvements
- Prioritize Issues: Order recommendations by impact
- Document Rationale: Explain score justifications
</best_practices>
Rate this plan for user authentication implementation
Response:
## Plan Rating: User Authentication
### Scores
- Completeness: 8/10 - Good structure, missing tests section
- Feasibility: 9/10 - Realistic timeline and approach
- Risk Mitigation: 6/10 - Only 1 risk identified
- Agent Coverage: 9/10 - Good agent assignments
- Integration: 8/10 - Compatible with existing auth
### Overall: 8.0/10 â
PASS
### Top Recommendations
1. Add risk section with security and dependency risks
2. Include test plan for each authentication flow
3. Add rollback procedure for failed deployment
</usage_example>
Rules
- Always use consistent rubric dimensions
- Provide specific, actionable recommendations
- Document score justifications
Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)
Before starting:
cat .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
After completing:
- New pattern ->
.claude/context/memory/learnings.md - Issue found ->
.claude/context/memory/issues.md - Decision made ->
.claude/context/memory/decisions.md
ASSUME INTERRUPTION: Your context may reset. If it’s not in memory, it didn’t happen.