reviewer
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Reviews a drafted ProposedAction against the active Investment Policy Statement and rules, producing a ReviewerVerdict with per-rule pass/fail results and an overall_pass flag. Runs between Action Drafting and the Human-in-the-Loop approval gate.
33 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- NilsHellwig/acl-paper-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Vinix24/vnx-orchestrationtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- ChrisAraneo/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- J-T-McC/dev-teamtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Rhovian/nilestheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- cathaysia/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 23, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use tester, planner and 2 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.
KJ-devsSkilltester
Écrit les tests en TDD (Red phase first) et vérifie leur passage (Green phase). Frontend avec Playwright, backend avec BDD Given-When-Then.
Also in 4 projects that use this
am-willSkillplanner
Create comprehensive, phased implementation plans with sprints and atomic tasks. Use when user says: "make a plan", "create a plan", "plan this out", "plan the implementation", "help me plan", "design a plan", "draft a plan", "write a plan", "outline the steps", "break this down into tasks", "what's the plan for", or any similar planning request. Also triggers on explicit "/planner" or "/plan" commands.
Also in 5 projects that use this
tesla0225Skillorchestrator
Issue/要件を受けたら分解→担当割当→実装→検証→統合を回す手順。未整備なら /repo-init でbootstrap。
Also in 4 projects that use this
Harut8Skillarchitect
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions33 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 33
- pydantic/pydantic-ai★ 21ksame name
- keli-wen/agy-staff★ 828same name
- vanillagreencom/kendex★ 76same name
- Vinix24/vnx-orchestration★ 63same name
- microsoft/aspnetcore-ja-handbook★ 33same name
- jshsakura/awesome-opencode-skills★ 30same name
- felvieira/claude-skills-fv★ 27same name
- arctan303/creator.skill★ 19same name
- Victorcorcos/skills★ 7same name
- Rhovian/niles★ 4same name
23 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.
In this repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- action-draftingSkill
- equity-researchSkill
- goals-onboardingSkill
- portfolio-analysisSkill
- researchSkill
- spending-analysisSkill
- suitabilitySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 24 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 33
Before the HITL approval gate (whose gate check reads reviewer_verdict.overall_pass)
- Distinctive: line 35
Before Alpaca execution (which refuses execution when the reviewer fails, per ADR-0014)
- Distinctive: line 46
No BigQuery access. No write access.
- Very specific: line 134
Every rule produces a RuleResult with passed=true or passed=false — no rule is silently skipped.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 24 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
reviewer
Purpose
Validates a drafted ProposedAction before it reaches the human. Reads
the active InvestmentPolicyStatement, current HoldingsSnapshot, and
the ProposedAction itself; produces a ReviewerVerdict with itemized
rule_results and a single overall_pass boolean.
Per ADR-0014's defense-in-depth pattern, the LLM's verdict is
advisory. The orchestrator re-runs every rule deterministically in
orchestrator/reviewer/rules.py and uses that verdict for
enforcement. This SKILL.md defines the rules for both — the LLM reasons
over them here, the orchestrator enforces them in code. Any divergence
is audited.
When this skill runs
- Immediately after Action Drafting produces a
ProposedActionwithstatus: drafted - Before the HITL approval gate (whose gate check reads
reviewer_verdict.overall_pass) - Before Alpaca execution (which refuses execution when the reviewer fails, per ADR-0014)
Inputs (pre-computed by orchestrator preloader)
| Field | Source | Required |
proposed_action | Action Drafting output, drafted this cycle | Yes |
active_ips | Firestore, read-only | Yes |
holdings | Firestore, read-only | Yes |
No BigQuery access. No write access. No external tools.
Rules to evaluate
For each rule below, produce a RuleResult with:
rule_id: exact string as listeddescription: short human-readablepassed: true / falsedetail: optional explanation, especially whenpassed=false
excluded_ticker
Fails if proposed_action.ticker appears in active_ips.constraints.excluded_tickers.
excluded_sector
Fails if the sector of proposed_action.ticker appears in
active_ips.constraints.excluded_sectors. Sector lookup uses the same
static map the orchestrator's primitives/action_drafting.py::KNOWN_SECTOR_MAP provides;
if excluded_sectors is defined in the IPS and the ticker isn't in the map (sector is Unknown),
this rule fails-closed to prevent unverified sector exposure.
concentration_limit
Applies to buys only. Fails a buy whose resulting position value
(current position + trade value) would exceed
active_ips.constraints.concentration_limit_percent of total portfolio
value. A sell always passes this rule: a concentration ceiling can
only be breached by adding to a position, and a sell strictly reduces it —
failing a trim because the remaining position is still above the limit
would make an overweight holding (e.g. a broad-market ETF held as the core
sleeve) impossible to unwind. allocation_band_direction separately vets
that a sell moves the asset class the right way.
allocation_band_direction
Fails if the trade moves the asset class away from the IPS target
band. A sell in an under-allocated asset class fails; a buy in an
over-allocated asset class fails. Uses primitives/portfolio_analysis.py::calculate_drift
semantics to determine current-vs-target position of the asset class.
ips_version_current
Fails if proposed_action.ips_version_referenced does not match the
currently active IPS version for the user. Guards against a stale IPS
being used to justify a proposal after the user updated their policy.
Output: ReviewerVerdict
{
"verdict_id": "<uuid>",
"action_id": "<from proposed_action.action_id>",
"ips_version_checked_against": {"ips_id": "...", "version": N},
"rule_results": [
{"rule_id": "excluded_ticker", "description": "...", "passed": true, "detail": null},
...
],
"overall_pass": true|false,
"requires_human_approval": true|false,
"reviewer_skill_version": {"skill_name": "private-reviewer", "skill_version": "0.1.0"},
"reviewed_at": "<ISO-8601 timestamp>"
}overall_pass is true iff every rule_result.passed is true.
requires_human_approval — set to true when either (a) overall_pass=false
(a violation must be surfaced to the human), or (b) the action's
estimated_value_usd exceeds active_ips.approval_required_above_usd, or
(c) the action's value as a fraction of total portfolio exceeds
active_ips.approval_required_above_percent. Per the spec, requires_human_approval
can be true even when overall_pass=true — high-stakes actions always go to
a human regardless of policy compliance.
Tools / permissions required
- Managed Agent sandbox: reasons over the orchestrator's pre-computed IPS + holdings + ProposedAction context. Produces the typed verdict.
- Orchestrator (outside sandbox): pre-fetches state, invokes the MA, re-runs the same rules in deterministic Python code, writes the audit entry with both verdicts.
- No Firestore, no BigQuery, no trade-execution tools. The reviewer has no way to change state — its output is the verdict.
Registry metadata
- Registered as:
projects/{project}/locations/{location}/skills/private-reviewer - Skill revision: 0.1.0 (draft — not yet registered)
- Approval scope:
read:proposed_action,read:holdings,read:ips
Acceptance criteria
- Every rule produces a
RuleResultwithpassed=trueorpassed=false— no rule is silently skipped;overall_passis the AND of everypassedfield. - On a happy-path action (no violations),
overall_pass=true. - On any single-rule violation,
overall_pass=falseand the offending rule'spassed=falsewith adetailstring. requires_human_approvalis independentlytrueon high-stakes actions even whenoverall_pass=true.ips_version_checked_againstmatches the IPS the orchestrator preloaded, not a version the LLM invented.- The orchestrator's deterministic re-check produces the same
rule_results(for the currently-implemented rule set) — any divergence is captured in the audit log's detail field.
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.

