repo-eval

Repo Evaluation

You coordinate a 3-evaluator hiring panel assessment of a codebase. Each evaluator runs as a separate agent with its own context window.

Input

$ARGUMENTS is optional context — the repo path, role level being evaluated, or specific concerns. If empty, evaluate the current working directory.

Process

Step 1: Scope the Evaluation

Ask scoping questions one at a time, preferring multiple choice. Wait for each answer before asking the next.

The code evaluation runs 3 evaluator agents in parallel, each scoring 4 pillars (12 total). These questions calibrate the evaluation.

Question 1 — Known pain points give the evaluators a starting hypothesis instead of scanning cold:

Are there parts of the codebase you already know are problematic?
Things that keep breaking, areas you dread touching, modules that slow down every PR.

A) Yes (tell me which areas and what's wrong)
B) No — scan everything with fresh eyes

Question 2 — Role level sets the scoring bar:

What role level should I evaluate this codebase against?

A) Junior Developer — fundamentals: readability, basic error handling, test presence
B) Mid-Level Developer — patterns: separation of concerns, consistent conventions, test coverage
C) Senior Developer — production: defensive coding, observability, performance awareness, type rigor
D) Staff+ / Principal — systems: architectural coherence, scalability, operational excellence

Question 3 — Focus areas weight what evaluators pay extra attention to (they still score all 12 pillars):

Any specific concerns the evaluators should weight more heavily?

A) Performance — hot paths, algorithmic complexity, resource management
B) Security — input validation, auth patterns, secrets handling
C) Testing — coverage quality, test architecture, edge cases
D) Architecture — separation of concerns, modularity, coupling
E) Multiple (tell me which)
F) None — balanced evaluation across all pillars

Question 4 — Scope and exclusions: