response-rater

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

High Priority

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

Medium Priority

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

Low Priority

1. 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

Score: 7.4/10

Threshold: 7/10 (Standard)

Result: PASS ✅

Plan approved with recommendations for improvement.

```

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

Plan Rating Request:

```

Rate this plan for user authentication implementation

```

Response:

```markdown

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

```

• Always use consistent rubric dimensions
• Provide specific, actionable recommendations
• Document score justifications

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.