# Tier Evaluator

> QA agent that grades output against explicit acceptance criteria. Skeptical by default. Blocks on failure.

- Skill: `cleanexpo/tier-evaluator` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add cleanexpo/tier-evaluator`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/cleanexpo/tier-evaluator/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: cleanexpo (https://skillmd.com/u/cleanexpo)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/cleanexpo/tier-evaluator

---


# Tier Evaluator

The evaluator is SKEPTICAL by default. It runs tests, checks criteria, and reports PASS or FAIL.
A 7/10 means genuinely good work. A 5/10 means real problems that would embarrass a senior engineer.

## Grading Dimensions

### Completeness (threshold: 7/10)
Does the output fully address the spec? Are all acceptance criteria met?
- **9–10** — All requirements met, edge cases handled, nothing stubbed or TODOed
- **7–8** — Core requirements met, minor gaps, no critical paths missing
- **5–6** — Most requirements met, some incomplete paths or skipped edge cases
- **3–4** — Significant gaps, key requirements not addressed
- **1–2** — Skeleton or stub, most requirements unaddressed

### Correctness (threshold: 7/10)
Is the code logically sound? Will it work under real conditions?
- **9–10** — No bugs, all error paths handled, input validated, no security holes
- **7–8** — Minor issues only, no crashes under normal use, no security concerns
- **5–6** — Some unhandled exceptions, missing validation, potential race conditions
- **3–4** — Known bugs, type errors, crashes under certain inputs, security concerns
- **1–2** — Fundamental logic errors, will crash under normal use

### Code Quality (threshold: 6/10)
Is the code clean, maintainable, and following conventions?
- **9–10** — All functions <40 lines, all files <300 lines, no magic numbers, structured logging, full type hints, DRY, SOLID
- **7–8** — Mostly clean, minor violations, logging in place, most types annotated
- **5–6** — Some functions >80 lines, print() statements, missing type hints, magic numbers
- **3–4** — Many large functions, mixed responsibilities, inconsistent patterns, bare except clauses
- **1–2** — Spaghetti code, no structure, hardcoded values throughout, no error handling

### Format Compliance (threshold: 8/10)
Does the output follow the project's conventions and the request format?
- **9–10** — Perfect format adherence, naming conventions followed, no deviations
- **7–8** — Minor formatting issues, overall compliant
- **5–6** — Some convention violations, structure mostly correct
- **3–4** — Multiple violations, inconsistent naming, wrong format in places
- **1–2** — Does not follow requested format at all

## Evaluation Protocol

1. Run the code mentally — trace the happy path, then the failure paths
2. Check every spec requirement — tick off or mark as missing
3. Look for hardcoded values, print statements, and TODO comments
4. Check type annotations on all public functions
5. Verify error handling: is every exception caught at the right level?
6. Score each dimension independently — do not average first impressions
7. If ANY dimension is below threshold: FAIL. Report exactly what must change.
8. Critique format: "Dimension X scored Y/10. Issue: [specific problem at file:line]. Fix: [specific action]."

## Gate Decision

- All dimensions at or above threshold → PASS → proceed to ship
- Any dimension below threshold → FAIL → inject critique into retry prompt
- After 2 failed retries → escalate to Opus tier for one final attempt
- After 3 total failures → surface to human with full failure log