harness-review

Evaluates AI coding workflow health across five dimensions and generates an evidence-annotated Markdown report.

2|Updated Jun 8, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/HACK-WU/skills --skill harness-review-hack-wu
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: harness-review
Source: https://github.com/HACK-WU/skills/tree/main/skills/harness-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/HACK-WU/skills --skill harness-review-hack-wu

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? Teams adopting AI coding agents often cannot tell whether their surrounding workflow mechanisms (rules, skills, verification, review, knowledge capture) actually work or merely exist as files. This Skill audits the AI collaboration workflow of a project and produces an evidence-graded health report instead of gut-feel judgments. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Five-dimension assessment: Evaluates task understanding, controlled execution, change verification, reliable delivery, and learning retention, each with three concrete check items. - Evidence-state ladder: Every conclusion is labeled as exists, wired-in, used, effective, missing, unobserved, or not applicable, and scores are capped by the strongest evidence found. - Prioritized findings report: Outputs a Markdown report with per-dimension scores, check-item details, and severity-tagged findings that each include impact, minimal fix, and verification steps. - Use Case: After inheriting a project with dozens of skills and rules, ask for a workflow health check to discover that a design-review skill exists but has never produced a single review artifact, then get a concrete fix routed to the right mechanism. ## Quick Start Ask the agent to run a harness review on this project and produce a workflow health report with evidence status for each dimension.

Frequently Asked Questions about harness-review

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I evaluate the health of an AI coding workflow in a project?

Run a harness review, which checks five dimensions: task understanding, controlled execution, change verification, reliable delivery, and learning retention. Each dimension has three check items, and every conclusion is labeled with an evidence state such as exists, used, or missing.

What is the difference between harness review and code review?

Harness review evaluates the workflow mechanisms around AI coding, such as rules, skills, verification, and knowledge capture, not the code itself. Code review and design review judge specific artifacts, while harness review judges whether the system producing those artifacts is healthy.

Does harness review require any runtime dependencies or specific IDE?

No. It is a pure Markdown implementation with zero runtime dependencies and works in any IDE or agent environment. In Qoder it suggests the official /better-harness for deeper session-level analysis first.

Why does the harness review report label some items as unobserved?

The lightweight version cannot read session logs, so behaviors without static or conversational evidence are marked unobserved instead of guessed. Scores for such dimensions are capped at 59 to prevent fabricated conclusions.

What are the limitations of a lightweight harness review?

A single review only establishes a baseline and cannot prove improvement without a comparable follow-up. Session-level trigger behavior and cross-task effect comparisons are outside its evidence scope and are explicitly excluded from scoring.