package-review-prompt
Skill2 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Assemble a grounded review prompt from a local artifact bundle so Codex or Claude Code can inspect the right files and ask the right questions.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- compare-video-runsSkill
- install-skill-packSkill
- layout-safety-reviewSkill
- review-bundleSkill
- segment-evidenceSkill
- segment-storyboardSkill
- skill-catalogSkill
- source-media-signalsSkill
- storyboard-extractSkill
- storyboard-ocrSkill
- storyboard-transitionsSkill
- storyboard-understandSkill
- video-artifact-intakeSkill
- video-shotsSkill
- video-technical-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this when you want a reviewer agent to sound grounded in the real run artifacts rather than hallucinating the review surface.
- Very specific: line 19
Use the same bundle locators as video-artifact-intake, plus optional review context:
- Very specific: line 39
When video.shots.json exists, the prompt includes a short shot-structure preview.
- Very specific: line 59
Run after video-artifact-intake or review-bundle if you need to delegate a review.
- Distinctive: line 70
Use timeline evidence to ground ordering, caption, transcript, and action claims before relying on sparse storyboard frames.
- Distinctive: line 73
Use shot evidence to choose which video segments or representative frames need closer inspection.
- Distinctive: line 76
Use segment evidence as the fastest routing layer for which parts have usable, weak, or empty evidence.
- Distinctive: line 81
Do not use this skill to summarize artifacts you have not generated or found.
- Distinctive: line 82
Do not ask a reviewer to evaluate claims that are unsupported by the bundle, unless they are explicitly framed as open questions.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Package Review Prompt
Use this when you want a reviewer agent to sound grounded in the real run artifacts rather than hallucinating the review surface.
This skill produces:
- bundle summary
- artifact-aware prompt text
- explicit review focus areas
Inputs
Use the same bundle locators as video-artifact-intake, plus optional review
context:
{
"latestPointerRoot": "./output",
"specPath": "./specs/demo-review.md",
"focus": ["caption readability", "failure trace"]
}focus defaults to an empty array. specPath is optional and should point to a
local spec or brief the reviewer should consider.
Outputs
The result contains a grounded prompt assembled from discovered artifacts,
recommended focus areas, and optional spec/focus inputs. It is designed to be
handed to Codex or Claude Code for the next review step. When
timeline.evidence.json exists, the prompt includes a short timeline preview.
When video.shots.json exists, the prompt includes a short shot-structure
preview. When segment.evidence.json exists, the prompt includes a short
segment-evidence preview. When canonical analyzer files exist at the bundle
root, such as analyzer.report.json, media-probe.json, quality-gates.json,
or caption-artifact.json, the prompt lists them as report evidence so the
reviewer starts from the shared analyzer output.
The prompt also routes common reviewer failure modes:
quality-gates.jsonfailures and warnings, with first timestamped evidencequality.jsonfailures and warnings from consumer repos such as demo-machinedemo-visual-review.diff.jsonandgolden-frame.diff.jsonmismatch summary- legacy
visual-diff-report.jsonregression summaries when present demo-capture-evidence.jsonorscreenshots/manifest.jsonscreenshot evidencecaption-artifact.jsonreadability or sync risk plus caption-related gateslayout-safety.report.jsoncaption, safe-zone, OCR, and overlap issues- an explicit suggested first artifact to inspect next
Sequencing Guidance
Run after video-artifact-intake or review-bundle if you need to delegate a
review. If storyboard artifacts are needed but absent, run
storyboard-extract, storyboard-ocr, and optionally
storyboard-transitions/storyboard-understand before packaging the prompt.
Interpretation Notes
The generated prompt is a routing aid, not a review verdict. It should point the next agent at real files and questions. If the bundle is sparse, the prompt should preserve uncertainty rather than invent missing evidence.
Use timeline evidence to ground ordering, caption, transcript, and action claims before relying on sparse storyboard frames.
Use shot evidence to choose which video segments or representative frames need closer inspection. Do not treat shot boundaries as semantic proof by themselves.
Use segment evidence as the fastest routing layer for which parts have usable, weak, or empty evidence.
Abstention Rules
Do not use this skill to summarize artifacts you have not generated or found. Do not ask a reviewer to evaluate claims that are unsupported by the bundle, unless they are explicitly framed as open questions.
Failure Modes
Wrong bundle locators produce a grounded prompt for the wrong run. Missing
specPath should not fail the run if omitted, but an invalid provided path can
make the prompt incomplete or misleading. If discovered artifacts are sparse,
run intake/storyboard steps first.
Repo-side runner:
node --import tsx scripts/harness/package-review-prompt.ts
Installed-pack runner:
node ./.video-evaluator/agent/run-tool.mjs package-review-prompt
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

