Firm Pdca Eval

PDCA Eval

Scores one cycle against the acceptance criteria that were written before Do. Produces a verdict per criterion with evidence, and nothing else.

This is a separate step for a reason. When the same reasoning that produced the work also judges it, the judgement adds no independent signal — it shares the executor's blind spots and tends to confirm the work rather than test it. An evaluation is only worth running if it applies a check the executing step did not.

Read First

1. The cycle file: workspace/pdca/{area}/cycles/{cycle-id}--{slug}.md.
2. workspace/pdca/{area}/evals.md — regression tests and reusable checks.
3. workspace/pdca/{area}/README.md — metric directions and roles.

Read the acceptance criteria before reading the Do Log, so the criteria frame the evidence rather than the evidence reframing the criteria.

When to Use

• Before Check in firm-pdca-cycle. Required, not optional.
• The user wants to know whether work actually met its criteria.
• A result looks good and nobody has tested it against what was promised.
• A previously fixed failure needs a regression check.

What You Receive

• the goal and baseline,
• the acceptance criteria as written before Do,
• the raw evidence and the state of the target system,
• the tool trace, if available,
• the regression tests from evals.md.

You do not receive, and must not accept as evidence, the executing step's own narrative that the work went well.

Grader Order

Always in this order. Stop escalating once a criterion is decided.

1. Deterministic checks

Scripts, exit codes, file existence, frontmatter values, counts, string matches. These live outside the generating process, so they are the strongest evidence available.

Available in this repo:

Plus anything the criterion names: file present, count ≥ N, frontmatter field set, command exits 0.

2. Independent LLM judge

Only for criteria a script cannot decide — tone, positioning fit, whether a draft genuinely answers a buyer question.

Rules:

• Run in a fresh session or a separate context when the platform allows it.
• Judge against the criterion and the firm profile, not against the executor's explanation.
• Cite the specific passage that decided the verdict.
• Return uncertain rather than guessing. uncertain is a useful signal; a confident wrong pass is not.

3. Human

Escalate to the owner when:

• a grader returned uncertain on a mandatory criterion,
• deterministic and LLM graders disagree,
• the criterion covers a high-risk, irreversible, public, financial, or reputational action.

Verdicts

Every criterion gets pass, fail, or uncertain, each with evidence.

Closing rules:

1. A cycle may close as failed. Failure is a legitimate, useful outcome.
2. A cycle may not close as successful, and its actions may not be scaled or standardized, while any mandatory criterion is fail or uncertain.
3. Absence of evidence is uncertain, never pass.
4. Do not soften a fail because the effort was substantial or the intent good.

Output

Write the verdict table into the cycle's ## Eval Results:

| # | Criterion | Grader | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|-----------|--------|---------|----------|
| 1 | Drafts pass validator first run | deterministic | pass | 3/3 exit 0 |
| 2 | Answers an uncovered buyer question | deterministic | pass | Ideas 14, 19, 22 |
| 3 | Tone matches firm profile | llm | uncertain | Drafts B and C read more promotional than profile allows |

Mandatory: 2 pass, 0 fail, 0 uncertain.
Overall: pass with a non-mandatory concern.
Escalated to owner: no.

Do not write anything else into the cycle file. Check and Act belong to firm-pdca-cycle.

Turning Failures Into Tests

Every confirmed, repeated failure becomes a regression test.

1. Add the symptom, cause, fix, prevention, and automated check to workspace/pdca/{area}/errors.md.
2. Add the corresponding check to workspace/pdca/{area}/evals.md so future cycles are graded against it automatically.

An errors.md entry with no matching check in evals.md is incomplete — nothing stops the failure from recurring.

errors.md entry:

## Draft published without a linked idea

- Symptom: draft frontmatter `idea:` empty, validator failed on close
- Cause: draft written directly, skipping the idea backlog
- Fix: created the idea retroactively, relinked the draft
- Prevention: check `idea:` before publishing
- Automated check: `scripts/validate-content-draft.sh`
- Regression test: evals.md #4
- Verified: 2026-07-31

Rules

1. Evaluate against criteria written before Do. If criteria were written after, record that as a process failure and grade what exists.
2. Deterministic before LLM, always.
3. Cite evidence for every verdict. A verdict without evidence is an opinion.
4. Never edit the criteria to fit the result.
5. Never write Check or Act. Those are decisions; this skill only produces findings.

Testing Requirements

1. Evaluate a cycle where one mandatory criterion clearly fails; confirm the verdict blocks a successful close.
2. Evaluate a cycle with a missing piece of evidence; confirm uncertain, not pass.
3. Add one failure to errors.md and confirm a matching check lands in evals.md.

Related Skills