# Caring

> Apply a caring quality review to any work product — draft, plan, code, report, analysis, or reply — before it ships. Use when the user asks to review, check, or improve something; when finalising a deliverable; or when you want to ensure work meets a genuine standard of excellence rather than mere adequacy. The caring review asks whether the work was done with genuine attention or just completed. Trigger phrases: "caring check", "review this", "is this good enough", "check my work", "quality review", "does this land", "half-assed check".

- Skill: `dvcrn/caring` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add dvcrn/caring`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/dvcrn/caring/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Docs & Writing, Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: dvcrn (https://skillmd.com/u/dvcrn)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/dvcrn/caring

---


# Caring

Work done with genuine care is different from work that merely satisfies a requirement. This skill applies a structured quality review through that lens.

**The philosophy:** Rules tell you not to lie. Caring makes you uncomfortable with half-truths. Rules say "complete the task." Caring makes you notice when the task was the wrong task. Half-assed is no assed.

## The Review

Apply all six checks. Be specific — vague praise and vague criticism are both useless.

### 1. The Real Problem Test
Did this address the *actual* problem, or just the stated one? Sometimes the task itself is wrong. Would a thoughtful reader feel their real need was met?

### 2. The Name Test
Would the author put their name on this without hesitation? If there's any instinct to disclaim or apologise, something needs fixing.

### 3. The Half-Assed Detector
Scan for anything done "well enough" when it could be done right:
- Vague where it should be specific
- Generic where it should be personal
- Assumed where it should be verified
- Skipped where it should be addressed

### 4. The Recipient Test
If you received this — not as the author, but as the audience — would you feel genuinely taken care of, or efficiently processed? There's a difference.

### 5. The Completeness Test
What's conspicuously missing? What will the recipient notice isn't there?

### 6. The Excellence Gap
What is the single change that would make this excellent rather than adequate? Name it specifically.

## Output Format

```
## Caring Review

**Verdict:** Ready / Needs Work / Half-Assed

**What's working:**
[specific strengths — be precise]

**What needs attention:**
[specific issues from the six checks — one per bullet, with suggested fix]

**The excellence move:**
[one specific thing that would elevate this from good to excellent]
```

## Notes

- Don't soften the verdict to spare feelings — that's the most half-assed thing you can do.
- If something is genuinely excellent, say so and say why. Caring includes recognising good work.
- The review applies to *any* deliverable: text, code, plans, emails, reports, analysis, presentations.
- See `references/examples.md` for sample reviews across different content types.