review
Skill29 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Handle reviewer, judge, or SME requests to review evaluation test sets that a maker tagged with review_requested. This is a workflow review, not a quality-validation request. Do not invoke the evaluation validate subagent when entering this skill. The reviewer must not be asked to pull or refresh test sets manually. Read .local/config.json and src/skills/evaluations/deployment-flow.md. Dataverse pushes review metadata in the evaluation-parent description. Native MinimalBot pushes YAML only and retains review sidecars locally; do not block the existing local review workflow…
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
19 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 162 edited versions we read keep these.
12
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 13
Read .local/config.json and src/skills/evaluations/deployment-flow.md.
- Distinctive: line 17
Do not turn a successful native YAML upload into a cross-user review-availability claim or invent remote metadata.
- Very specific: line 22
When .local/config.json has releaseLine: "da" or a powerPlatformApiEndpoint and no dataverseEndpoint, treat it as native.
- Very specific: line 24
Run only python scripts/evaluation_review.py --list-all, select rows whose localStatus is review_requested, and never invoke Dataverse MCP, …
- Very specific: line 29
Only a configured agent with a real dataverseEndpoint uses the Dataverse refresh and synchronized remote-marker discovery below.
- Very specific: line 47
Do not ask for a separate confirmation or instruct the reviewer to run /setup --refresh.
- Distinctive: line 51
When no configured agent exists, skip the refresh and continue discovery so the command can report any eligible local state.
- Distinctive: line 65
Use this command's JSON output as the complete Dataverse pending-review list.
- Distinctive: line 83
Use the command output, never an ad hoc sidecar glob or a cross-agent search.
- Distinctive: line 87
Before reading cases or running any validation, present the pending sets:
- Distinctive: line 93
If no tagged sets are available on Dataverse, say that no test sets from the latest pulled Copilot Studio state are currently available for …
- Distinctive: line 99
Do not run the quality validator as a fallback.
- Distinctive: line 101
Use the available structured question control (dropdown or choice buttons) with one option per returned test set.
- Very specific: line 107
Do not call the test sets "pending" in the user-facing question.
- Distinctive: line 109
Wait for the user to select before continuing.
- Very specific: line 113
After the user selects a set, read src/skills/evaluations/update/SKILL.md and follow Flow R2 — Review assigned test sets, beginning with …
- Distinctive: line 120
Never describe this workflow as "view-only".
- Distinctive: line 123
Before ending, the reviewer must be offered a structured choice to Provide feedback or recommendations for the maker or Mark review …
- Distinctive: line 136
Never infer completion from maker activity, quality scores, or an ordinary push.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 162 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Review Evaluation Test Sets
Handle reviewer, judge, or SME requests to review evaluation test sets that a
maker tagged with review_requested.
This is a workflow review, not a quality-validation request. Do not invoke the evaluation validate subagent when entering this skill.
Step 1: Discover tagged test sets
The reviewer must not be asked to pull or refresh test sets manually.
Read .local/config.json and src/skills/evaluations/deployment-flow.md.
Dataverse pushes review metadata in the evaluation-parent description. Native
MinimalBot pushes YAML only and retains review sidecars locally; do not block
the existing local review workflow on a new shared-metadata prerequisite.
Do not turn a successful native YAML upload into a cross-user review-availability
claim or invent remote metadata.
Apply this backend gate before any refresh, MCP invocation, or remote discovery:
- When
.local/config.jsonhasreleaseLine: "da"or apowerPlatformApiEndpointand nodataverseEndpoint, treat it as native. Run onlypython scripts/evaluation_review.py --list-all, select rows whoselocalStatusisreview_requested, and never invoke Dataverse MCP,fetch_and_setup.py --refresh, or the Dataverse-only--list --statuscommand. A Dataverse authentication prompt in this branch is a routing error, not a prerequisite. - Only a configured agent with a real
dataverseEndpointuses the Dataverse refresh and synchronized remote-marker discovery below. - With no configured agent, use local-inclusive discovery without either remote backend.
For a Dataverse configured agent, and only after the backend gate selects the Dataverse branch, refresh before listing review work:
python scripts/fetch_and_setup.py --refreshThe refresh flow creates a checkpoint before replacing local agent files and rebuilds the baseline from the latest Copilot Studio state. Show a short progress message such as:
Refreshing the latest evaluation test sets from Copilot Studio...
Do not ask for a separate confirmation or instruct the reviewer to run
/setup --refresh. If refresh fails, report the actual authentication, API, or
setup error and stop rather than presenting a stale review list.
When no configured agent exists, skip the refresh and continue discovery so the command can report any eligible local state. The local working status alone is not proof that a configured-agent review tag was pushed.
For Dataverse review discovery, from the solution root run:
python scripts/evaluation_review.py --list --status review_requestedThis command compares each configured-agent working set with its matching
.baseline/evaluations/{set}/ snapshot from the latest pull or successful
push. It returns only sets whose localStatus and deployedStatus are both
review_requested.
Use this command's JSON output as the complete Dataverse pending-review list. Do not
replace it with a broad file-search or glob. The command filters out local-only review requests that have not been pushed,
review completions waiting to be pushed, and review_completed sets. It
returns each set's source, folder, test-case count, local status, deployed
status, synchronization state, and next action.
For native local review, use the existing local-inclusive discovery instead:
python scripts/evaluation_review.py --list-allSelect returned rows with localStatus=review_requested and label them
Review requested locally, not remotely assigned/shared review work. The
sidecar stays in the selected local/promoted folder and confirmed plan
fingerprint, not deployed .baseline. Do not require a remote review refresh
or matching deployedStatus/nextAction=review to inspect this local work.
An explicit local review completion remains distinct from remote publication.
Use the command output, never an ad hoc sidecar glob or a cross-agent search.
Step 2: List before reviewing
Before reading cases or running any validation, present the pending sets:
# Test set Source Test cases Review status 1 Compensation Configured agent 8 Review requested
If no tagged sets are available on Dataverse, say that no test sets from the
latest pulled Copilot Studio state are currently available for review. On
native, say no eligible locally tagged sets were returned; shared-review
discovery is not provided by the existing YAML-only push. On Dataverse, do not
treat a local review_requested change with nextAction=push_review_request
as shared review work. Native local review does not wait for that shared marker.
Do not run the quality validator as a fallback.
Use the available structured question control (dropdown or choice buttons) with one option per returned test set. Each option must include the test-set name, source, and case count. Ask exactly:
Which test set would you like to review?
Do not call the test sets "pending" in the user-facing question. The
review_requested status already communicates that internally.
Wait for the user to select before continuing.
Step 3: Continue the review workflow
After the user selects a set, read
src/skills/evaluations/update/SKILL.md and follow Flow R2 — Review assigned
test sets, beginning with showing its prompts and expected responses.
The reviewer inspects prompts and expected responses and provides feedback, suggestions, or recommendations for the maker. The reviewer does not edit test-case source files in this flow, so quality validation is not invoked. Never describe this workflow as "view-only"; it produces an actionable review handoff.
Before ending, the reviewer must be offered a structured choice to Provide feedback or recommendations for the maker or Mark review complete without feedback. If recommendations are supplied, state that the maker owns the official edits, validation, push, and subsequent evaluation run.
Retain all feedback for the same selected set and ask whether to Provide more
feedback or Mark review complete. Explicit completion follows update Flow
R2 and src/skills/evaluations/deployment-flow.md in the same workflow:
save explicit local completion and continue the existing scoped push. Dataverse
verifies the published marker. Native reports the uploaded/reused ID,
reviewMetadataPersisted=false, deployedReviewStatus=null, and reviewWarning;
completion is local, not published to other users. Run remains subject to its
existing gates. Failed/cancelled completion deployment stays local/pending.
Never infer completion from maker activity, quality scores, or an ordinary push.
Other versions193 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 193
- garrytan/gstack★ 139ksame name
- ansible/ansible★ 71ksame name
- docling-project/docling★ 70ksame name
- traefik/traefik★ 65ksame name
- ClickHouse/ClickHouse★ 51ksame name
- temporalio/temporal★ 24ksame name
- tisfeng/Easydict★ 15ksame name
- juicedata/juicefs★ 15ksame name
- elie222/inbox-zero★ 13ksame name
- gitkraken/vscode-gitlens★ 9.9ksame name
183 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use daily-arxiv, exp-eval and 9 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
LambenthanSkilldaily-arxiv
每日从 arXiv 拉取新论文,过滤相关性,auto-ingest 高优先级论文,检测 SOTA 更新
Also in 5 projects that use this
LambenthanSkillexp-eval
实验判决门:Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges
Also in 5 projects that use this
SethGammonSkillascii-diagram
Generate perfectly aligned ASCII diagrams — architecture, flow, sequence, box-and-arrow. Uses a programmatic character-grid approach so alignment is guaranteed by math, not token prediction. Includes post-render verification.
Also in 4 projects that use this
DAIR-AutoResearchSkillexp-pilot-eval
Pilot result evaluation — read pilot results, apply success criteria, update idea page (pilot_result, failure_reason if failed), generate PILOT_VERDICT_REPORT. Called by /ideate Phase 5 after /exp-pilot-run.
Also in 4 projects that use this
DAIR-AutoResearchSkillexp-pilot-run
Pilot experiment execution — read Pilot Spec YAML, write pilot code, run experiment(Confirm with the user before operation and require the applicant to conduct manual inspection), return results. Called by /ideate Phase 5. Does NOT modify wiki pages or judge pass/fail.
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +5 more from Lambenthan
- +1 more from DAIR-AutoResearch
In this repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- dev-specs/ess-nextgen-migration-toolkit/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- samples/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- solutions/ess-maker-skills/scripts/flightcheck/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- tests/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- tools/ess-nextgen-migration-toolkit/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- dev-specs/ess-nextgen-migration-toolkit/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- tools/ess-nextgen-migration-toolkit/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- solutions/ess-maker-skills/.github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- create-or-update-sample-topicSkill
- prepare-sample-prSkill
- triage-sample-issueSkill
- validate-sample-topicSkill
- analyticsSkill
- backup-template-configsSkill
- cleanupSkill
- connectSkill
- workdaySkill
- createSkill
- deleteSkill
- dispatcherSkill
- generateSkill
- runSkill
- updateSkill
- validateSkill
- flightcheckSkill
- foundation-setupSkill
- landing-page-configSkill
- restore-template-configsSkill
- create-eval-drivenSkill
- createSkill
- deleteSkill
- reviewSkill
- testSkill
- update-eval-drivenSkill
- updateSkill
- troubleshootSkill
- createSkill
- deleteSkill
- testSkill
- updateSkill
- ESS-Diagnostics-SkillsSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

