---
name: response-rater
description: Rates responses and plans against quality rubrics. Used for plan validation, response quality audits, and multi-agent consensus.
version: 2.0.0
model: sonnet
invoked_by: both
user_invocable: true
tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep]
best_practices:
  - Use consistent rubric dimensions
  - Require minimum scores for approval
  - Document improvement suggestions
  - Track scores over time
error_handling: graceful
streaming: supported
verified: true
lastVerifiedAt: 2026-02-22T00:00:00.000Z
source: builtin
trust_score: 100
provenance_sha: 6f35df533ab2ff35
---

# Response Rater Skill

<identity>
Response Rater - Rates responses and plans against quality rubrics. Provides scores, feedback, and improvement suggestions.
</identity>

<capabilities>
- Rating responses against rubrics
- Validating plan quality
- Providing improvement feedback
- Generating quality reports
</capabilities>

<instructions>
<execution_process>

### Step 1: Define Rating Rubric

Use appropriate rubric for the content type:

**For Plans**:

| Dimension       | Weight | Description                       |
| --------------- | ------ | --------------------------------- |
| Completeness    | 20%    | All required sections present     |
| Feasibility     | 20%    | Plan is realistic and achievable  |
| Risk Mitigation | 20%    | Risks identified with mitigations |
| Agent Coverage  | 20%    | Appropriate agents assigned       |
| Integration     | 20%    | Fits with existing systems        |

**For Responses**:

| Dimension     | Weight | Description                |
| ------------- | ------ | -------------------------- |
| Correctness   | 25%    | Technically accurate       |
| Completeness  | 25%    | Addresses all requirements |
| Clarity       | 25%    | Easy to understand         |
| Actionability | 25%    | Provides clear next steps  |

### Step 2: Evaluate Each Dimension

Score each dimension 1-10:

```markdown
## Dimension Scores

### Completeness: 8/10

- Has objectives, steps, and timeline
- Missing risk assessment section

### Feasibility: 7/10

- Most steps are achievable
- Step 3 timeline is aggressive

### Risk Mitigation: 5/10

- Only 1 risk identified
- No mitigation strategies

### Agent Coverage: 9/10

- All steps have assigned agents
- Good agent-task matching

### Integration: 8/10

- Uses existing APIs
- Minor compatibility concerns
```

### Step 3: Calculate Overall Score

Average the weighted scores:

```
Overall = (8×0.2) + (7×0.2) + (5×0.2) + (9×0.2) + (8×0.2) = 7.4/10
```

### Step 4: Generate Recommendations

Provide actionable improvements:

```markdown
## Recommendations

### High Priority

1. Add risk assessment section with 3-5 risks
2. Include mitigation strategies for each risk

### Medium Priority

3. Extend Step 3 timeline by 2 days
4. Add fallback plan for external API dependency

### Low Priority

5. Add success metrics for each step
```

### Step 5: Make Pass/Fail Decision

Apply minimum score thresholds:

| Task Type  | Minimum Score |
| ---------- | ------------- |
| Standard   | 7/10          |
| Enterprise | 8/10          |
| Critical   | 9/10          |

```markdown
## Decision

**Score**: 7.4/10
**Threshold**: 7/10 (Standard)
**Result**: PASS ✅

Plan approved with recommendations for improvement.
```

</execution_process>

<best_practices>

1. **Consistent Rubrics**: Use same dimensions for comparable content
2. **Clear Thresholds**: Define pass/fail criteria upfront
3. **Actionable Feedback**: Provide specific improvements
4. **Prioritize Issues**: Order recommendations by impact
5. **Document Rationale**: Explain score justifications

</best_practices>
</instructions>

<examples>
<usage_example>
**Plan Rating Request**:

```
Rate this plan for user authentication implementation
```

**Response**:

```markdown
## Plan Rating: User Authentication

### Scores

- Completeness: 8/10 - Good structure, missing tests section
- Feasibility: 9/10 - Realistic timeline and approach
- Risk Mitigation: 6/10 - Only 1 risk identified
- Agent Coverage: 9/10 - Good agent assignments
- Integration: 8/10 - Compatible with existing auth

### Overall: 8.0/10 ✅ PASS

### Top Recommendations

1. Add risk section with security and dependency risks
2. Include test plan for each authentication flow
3. Add rollback procedure for failed deployment
```

</usage_example>
</examples>

## Iron Laws

1. **ALWAYS** use the same rubric dimensions when rating comparable content — inconsistent dimensions make scores meaningless and prevent valid comparison across sessions.
2. **NEVER** issue a pass/fail decision without documenting score justification for each dimension — unjustified scores cannot be reviewed, challenged, or improved.
3. **ALWAYS** apply defined minimum thresholds (7/10 standard, 8/10 enterprise, 9/10 critical) — ad-hoc thresholds produce inconsistent approval gates that erode trust in the rating system.
4. **NEVER** provide vague recommendations — every recommendation must reference the specific dimension it addresses and state the concrete change required.
5. **ALWAYS** prioritize recommendations by impact — high-priority items that would materially improve the score must be clearly distinguished from low-impact suggestions.

## Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern                                                           | Why It Fails                                                                              | Correct Approach                                                                                  |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Using different rubric dimensions for comparable content               | Scores cannot be compared across sessions; the rating loses its evaluative value          | Always use the same rubric (plans rubric for plans, responses rubric for responses)               |
| Omitting score justification for individual dimensions                 | Scores without justification cannot be reviewed, verified, or acted upon                  | Document specific evidence for each dimension score (what was present, what was missing)          |
| Setting thresholds arbitrarily per session                             | Inconsistent thresholds invalidate the pass/fail gate; teams lose confidence in approvals | Always apply the defined thresholds: 7/10 standard, 8/10 enterprise, 9/10 critical                |
| Providing vague recommendations ("improve quality", "add more detail") | Vague feedback cannot be acted upon; no change results from the review                    | Reference the specific dimension, score gap, and required concrete change for each recommendation |
| Listing recommendations without priority ordering                      | Equal-weight feedback causes raters to address low-impact items first                     | Always order by impact: High (affects pass/fail threshold) before Medium before Low               |

## Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

**Before starting:**

```bash
cat .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
```

**After completing:**

- New pattern -> `.claude/context/memory/learnings.md`
- Issue found -> `.claude/context/memory/issues.md`
- Decision made -> `.claude/context/memory/decisions.md`

> ASSUME INTERRUPTION: Your context may reset. If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.