fast-review
Mandatory post-delegation gate that checks output completeness, verifies acceptance criteria compliance, flags regressions, and produces a PASS/FAIL verdict. Use when checking delegated work against acceptance criteria, running the post-delegation gate, validating agent output before acceptance, verifying a sub-agent completed its assignment, or running a post-delegation QA check.
100
100%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong, well-crafted description that clearly defines a specific niche (post-delegation quality gating), lists concrete actions, and provides explicit trigger guidance via a comprehensive 'Use when...' clause. The terminology is domain-appropriate and distinctive enough to avoid conflicts with related but different skills like general code review or testing.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'checks output completeness', 'verifies acceptance criteria compliance', 'flags regressions', and 'produces a PASS/FAIL verdict'. These are clear, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (checks output completeness, verifies acceptance criteria compliance, flags regressions, produces PASS/FAIL verdict) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing five distinct trigger scenarios. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'post-delegation gate', 'acceptance criteria', 'delegated work', 'agent output', 'sub-agent', 'post-delegation QA check', 'PASS/FAIL verdict'. These cover the natural vocabulary a user or orchestrating agent would use in a multi-agent delegation workflow. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche: a post-delegation quality gate for sub-agent output. The terms 'post-delegation gate', 'sub-agent', 'PASS/FAIL verdict', and 'acceptance criteria compliance' are very specific and unlikely to conflict with general testing, code review, or other QA skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
100%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is an excellent skill file that is concise, highly actionable, and well-structured. It provides clear workflows with explicit validation gates, escalation paths, and error recovery loops. The anti-patterns section adds valuable guardrails, and the progressive disclosure to external references is well-executed.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every section is lean and purposeful. No unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Tables, bullet lists, and terse descriptions keep token usage minimal while preserving full clarity. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides executable JS code for spawning the reviewer, a concrete verdict format to parse, a specific CLI logging command, and clear decision tables for handling outcomes. The auto-PASS criteria and sensitive override rules are specific and unambiguous. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 4-step numbered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints: deterministic gates before review, structured verdict parsing with severity levels, retry logic with escalation path, and a hard gate on logging before proceeding. Error recovery (retry → panel → dispute) is well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a well-structured overview with appropriate references to external files (REFERENCE.md for the full reviewer prompt template, team-lead-reference for dispute protocol, panel-majority-vote skill for escalation). References are one level deep and clearly signaled. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- monkilabs/opencastle
- Commit
f5c8508
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.