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

speckit-evaluator-report

Skill3 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub

Render evaluator results as a human-readable report, CI annotation, or

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the specified result files (or discover them).

    line 41
  2. Distinctive:

    Never modify result files — report reads them only.

    line 124
  3. Distinctive:

    Never fabricate or summarize away findings — the report reflects exactly what the evaluators produced.

    line 125

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Evaluator Report Skill

Evaluator Report

Render evaluator results (individual or composed) into a human-readable report, CI annotation, or release gate decision.

This command consumes evaluator result JSON files and produces output suitable for different consumers: developers reading in-terminal, CI systems parsing annotations, or release pipelines checking gates.

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

The user input specifies what to report and how. Accept:

  1. Result files — one or more evaluator result file paths, or a composed result path. If not provided, discover the latest composed result for the current phase, or the latest individual results.
  2. Format — terminal (default), markdown, json, ci-annotation, or gate. See Output Formats below.
  3. Phase — filter results to a specific phase.
  4. Severity threshold — only show findings at or above this severity (critical, high, medium, low, info). Default: low.

Prerequisites

  • Path safety (do this before any read or write): resolve the project root and the real, symlink-resolved path of .specify/extensions/evaluator/results/ and every result file you touch. Refuse and report — never follow — if any path component is a symlink, or if the resolved path does not remain inside the project root.
  • At least one result file MUST exist. If none exist, report "No evaluator results found" and exit.

Execution

1. Load Results

Read the specified result files (or discover them). Each must be valid JSON conforming to the evaluator result schema.

2. Filter Findings

Apply the severity threshold. Findings below the threshold are excluded from the report but counted in the summary.

3. Render in Requested Format

terminal (default)

A color-coded terminal report:

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  EVALUATOR REPORT — after_plan
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  Outcome:  ITERATE
  Evaluators: 2 run, 1 passed, 1 requests iteration
  Findings: 3 total (0 critical, 2 high, 1 medium)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  [HIGH] EPI-001 — unsupported_claim
  Subject: REQ-014
  Evidence: none (unsupported)
  Recommendation: gather_evidence
  Rationale: Claim presented as fact without supporting evidence.

  [HIGH] EPI-002 — contradiction
  Subject: REQ-007
  Evidence: spec.md#REQ-007 (observed), constitution.md (observed)
  Recommendation: clarify
  Rationale: Requirement conflicts with constitution article IV.

  [MEDIUM] EPI-003 — ambiguous_requirement
  Subject: REQ-022
  Recommendation: clarify
  Rationale: Requirement uses undefined term "scalable".

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  Next Action: iterate → plan
  "2 of 2 evaluators completed. 1 requests iteration."
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

markdown

A Markdown document written to .specify/extensions/evaluator/reports/report-<phase>-<timestamp>.md. Suitable for PR comments, issue bodies, or documentation.

json

The raw JSON result(s) printed to stdout. Suitable for piping to other tools.

ci-annotation

GitHub Actions workflow commands (::warning::, ::error::) or GitLab CI annotations emitted to stdout. Format:

::error file=spec.md,line=14,title=EPI-001::[unsupported_claim] Claim presented as fact without supporting evidence
::warning file=plan.md,line=42,title=EPI-003::[ambiguous_requirement] Requirement uses undefined term "scalable"

Findings with severity critical or high use ::error::; medium and below use ::warning::.

gate

A release-gate decision. Exit code 0 if the composed outcome is pass or warn; exit code 1 for iterate, clarify, or gather_evidence; exit code 2 for block. Prints the outcome and summary to stdout.

4. Write Report (markdown format only)

For markdown format, write the report to .specify/extensions/evaluator/reports/report-<phase>-<timestamp>.md.

Output Formats Summary

FormatOutputUse Case
terminalColor-coded stdoutDeveloper review in terminal
markdownFile + stdout pathPR comments, documentation
jsonRaw JSON stdoutPiping to other tools
ci-annotationWorkflow commands stdoutCI/CD pipeline annotations
gateExit code + stdoutRelease gates, pre-commit hooks

Guardrails

  • Never modify result files — report reads them only.
  • Never fabricate or summarize away findings — the report reflects exactly what the evaluators produced.
  • For ci-annotation format, ensure file paths and line numbers are accurate — do not guess.
  • For gate format, the exit code MUST be deterministic given the same input results.
  • Reports are written under .specify/extensions/evaluator/reports/ — never outside this directory.

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.