agentleFS
electrohireelectrohire/spec-kit-evaluator/.github/skills/speckit-aee-review/SKILL.md

speckit-aee-review

Skill3 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub

Diff two AEE assessments into a materiality-filtered review queue

  • Installs packages

1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Files
SKILL.md

Aee Review Skill

AEE Review

Diff two rich AEE assessments and emit the bounded queue a reviewer actually owes attention: claims whose propagated score moved by at least the materiality threshold, policy verdict flips, and added/removed claims.

User input

$ARGUMENTS

Accept previous=<path> and current=<path> (assessment JSON files, usually under .specify/extensions/aee/assessments/), optional materiality=<0..1> (default 0.05, the engine's validated hysteresis point), and optional limit=<n> top-k budget applied after sorting by movement size.

Prerequisites

  1. Do not install the engine yourself. The runner uses an aee engine in the range >=1.5.0,<2 from the active Python; otherwise its first run installs applied-epistemic-engineering>=1.5.0,<2 into .specify/extensions/aee/.runtime (this needs network access once). If the runner refuses (exit 2) because that install is disabled (SPECKIT_AEE_AUTO_INSTALL=0) or failed, stop and relay its message, which names the manual python -m pip install "applied-epistemic-engineering>=1.5.0,<2" command.
  2. Resolve both assessment paths inside the project root. Never follow symlinks or read outside the project root.

Execution

Run:

python .specify/extensions/aee/scripts/python/run_aee.py review --previous "<path>" --current "<path>"

The runner prints the review queue as JSON. Report the moved claims (largest first, with before/after scores and bands), any verdict changes, and added/removed claims. An empty queue is a real result: it means nothing moved materially between the two assessments — say so rather than re-reviewing everything.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.