assessing-quality

Assessing Quality

Produce reviews that guide improvement, not just identify problems: validate what meets standards, categorise issues by priority with root causes, and give specific "where to next" guidance for every issue.

Output format

Save to work/<task-id>/review_v[N].md:

# Review: [Artefact Name] v[N]

**Reviewed:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Artefact Type:** [Skill/Agent/Workflow/Documentation]
**Applicable Standards:** [List]

## Summary
[Overall assessment in 2-3 sentences]

## What Meets Standards
[Validation of what works well — builds shared understanding]

## Priority Issues

### High Priority
**[Issue Title]**
- Symptom: [specific observation with location]
- Root cause: [underlying reason]
- Impact: [effect on purpose, audience, or standards]
- Where to next: [specific, actionable fix guidance]

### Medium Priority
[Same structure]

### Low Priority / Recommendations
[Suggestions with rationale]

## Assessment Against Standards
[Checklist from brief.md: [x] met, [~] partially met (specify gap), [ ] not met]

## Next Steps
[Prioritised by impact]

Workflow

Stage 1 — Prepare

1. Read the artefact fully. Note initial impressions; don't judge yet.
2. Read work/<task-id>/brief.md and extract its requirements checklist (the "Requirements Extracted from Standards" section). If that section is missing, identify applicable standards from the brief's context and extract requirements from those skills directly.
3. Note the artefact type and whether this is a v1 review or a v2+ iteration review.

Stage 2 — Assess

Evaluate against six core dimensions, documenting specific observations with locations:

• Completeness — required components present; checklist items addressed; no placeholders remain
• Clarity — understandable to the intended audience; terms defined at first use; examples for abstract concepts
• Correctness — factually accurate; internally consistent; references valid
• Consistency — one term per concept throughout; formatting patterns repeated; aligned with cited standards
• Fitness for purpose — the brief's target audience can apply it successfully; stated goals met; scope neither too narrow nor too broad
• Signal-to-noise — every passage changes something for the intended reader (their understanding, decision, or action); flag text that doesn't: filler, internal repetition, ceremony, explaining what the reader already knows. Noise is a quality defect, not a style preference — it buries the signal and costs the reader attention. Detail needed only conditionally belongs in references or appendices, not the body. Noise repeating across the artefact is systemic (Stage 4)