skills.rest
alo-exp
alo-expOFFICIAL
Explore all skills by this author →
WebsiteGitHub

artifact-review-assessor

Classify artifact reviewer findings into MUST-FIX, NICE-TO-HAVE, and DISMISS categories.

6|3|Updated Mar 31, 2026
Search Tags:#automation#code-quality#triage#contract#review-workflow#artifact-review
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/alo-exp/silver-bullet --skill artifact-review-assessor
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: artifact-review-assessor
Source: https://github.com/alo-exp/silver-bullet/tree/main/forge/skills/artifact-review-assessor
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/alo-exp/silver-bullet --skill artifact-review-assessor

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Triage reviewer findings against the artifact contract to classify issues into MUST-FIX, NICE-TO-HAVE, and DISMISS, preventing over-zealous reviews and stalled workflows.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Classifies each reviewer finding into MUST-FIX, NICE-TO-HAVE, or DISMISS based on the artifact contract.
  • Enforces a two-pass gating workflow: fix MUST-FIX items, then re-run the reviewer.
  • Integrates with existing artifact-review processes to reduce noise and ensure consistent decisions.

Quick Start

After artifact-reviewer produces findings, run artifact-review-assessor to classify them into MUST-FIX, NICE-TO-HAVE, and DISMISS and then fix MUST-FIX items before re-running the reviewer.

Frequently Asked Questions about artifact-review-assessor

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I triage artifact review findings against a contract?▼

To triage artifact review findings against a contract, classify each issue into MUST-FIX for contract violations, NICE-TO-HAVE for improvements lacking contract gaps, and DISMISS for stylistic or duplicate issues. This prevents over-zealous reviews and stalled workflows.

What is the two-pass gating workflow for artifact reviews?▼

The two-pass gating workflow for artifact reviews requires fixing all MUST-FIX items identified during triage, then re-running the reviewer to validate the changes. This enforces strict contract compliance before proceeding.

When should I dismiss reviewer findings instead of fixing them?▼

You should dismiss reviewer findings when they are purely stylistic or represent duplicate issues already reported. Dismissing these non-contract items reduces noise and ensures consistent review decisions.

How do I classify code review issues into MUST-FIX and NICE-TO-HAVE?▼

Classify code review issues into MUST-FIX if they trigger explicit contract violations, and NICE-TO-HAVE if they suggest improvements without corresponding contract gaps. NICE-TO-HAVE items are deferred to documentation when present.

Can I integrate artifact triage into an existing review workflow?▼

Yes, you can integrate artifact triage into existing review workflows by running the assessor after the artifact reviewer produces findings. It coordinates with contract sources and reviewer outputs to apply gated checks.

Why do my artifact reviews stall with too many minor issues?▼

Artifact reviews stall with too many minor issues when findings lack proper triage against the artifact contract. Classifying issues into MUST-FIX, NICE-TO-HAVE, and DISMISS prevents over-zealous reviews from blocking progress.

Related Skills

Explore More Software Engineering Skills→
Iron-HamIron-Ham
31

deep-review

Run parallel multi-agent code quality reviews and output prioritized reports.

Community
Advanced
ByeongminLeeByeongminLee
2

loop

Loop reviewer and lead-engineer reviews until all REQ items in spec.md pass.

Community
Advanced
Bossmann007Bossmann007

renewal-tracker

Track contract renewal deadlines and manage notice periods.

Community
Intermediate
maragudkmaragudk
48

code-review

Coordinate two competing subagents to review code diffs for architecture and implementation issues.

Official
Intermediate