김경종
2.7 KiB
2.7 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| harness-review | Review a Report Harness repository against its persistent rules and report docs. Use when Codex is asked to review local changes, generated phase files, research logs, report drafts, feedback handling, source quality, or output against `AGENTS.md`, `docs/ARCHITECTURE.md`, `docs/ADR.md`, `docs/UI_GUIDE.md`, and Harness step acceptance criteria. |
Report Harness Review
Use this skill when the user wants a repository-grounded report review instead of generic commentary.
Review input set
Read these first:
/AGENTS.md/docs/PRD.md/docs/ARCHITECTURE.md/docs/ADR.md/docs/UI_GUIDE.md/docs/RESEARCH_LOG.md/docs/REPORT_DRAFT.md/docs/FEEDBACK.md- the changed files or generated
phases/files under review
If the user explicitly asks for delegated review, prefer the repo custom agent harness_reviewer or built-in read-only explorers.
Checklist
Evaluate the patch against these questions:
- Does it follow the report workflow described in
docs/ARCHITECTURE.md? - Does it stay within the research and writing decisions documented in
docs/ADR.md? - Does it satisfy the topic, purpose, keywords, direction, audience, and output format in
docs/PRD.md? - Are new factual claims backed by sources in
docs/RESEARCH_LOG.mdor clearly marked as검증 필요? - Are source quality, publication/access dates, conflicts, and uncertainty handled explicitly?
- Does it violate any CRITICAL rule in
AGENTS.md? - Do generated
phases/files remain self-contained, executable, and internally consistent? - If the user expects verification, does
python scripts/validate_workspace.pysucceed or is the failure explained?
Output rules
- Lead with findings, ordered by severity.
- Include file references for each finding.
- Explain the concrete report-quality risk, not just the rule name.
- If there are no findings, say so explicitly and mention residual risks or missing evidence.
- Keep summaries brief after the findings.
Preferred review table
When the user asks for a checklist-style review, use this table:
| Item | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Brief alignment | PASS/FAIL | {details} |
| Research coverage | PASS/FAIL | {details} |
| Source quality | PASS/FAIL | {details} |
| Claim support | PASS/FAIL | {details} |
| Feedback handling | PASS/FAIL | {details} |
| CRITICAL rules | PASS/FAIL | {details} |
| Validation | PASS/FAIL | {details} |
What not to do
- Do not approve a draft just because it is well written.
- Do not ignore unsupported claims, stale sources, or missing counterarguments.
- Do not assume a passing hook means the report is acceptable; review the actual documents and phase files.