Review Policy

Review Policy

Purpose

Independently review a policy draft to verify quality, consistency with other organizational policies, and correctness of regulatory references. This skill is executed by the reviewer agent (checker role) and must never be performed by the same agent that drafted the policy.

Inputs

• Draft policy path: path to the updated policy file
• Original policy path: path to the previous version (or same path if reviewing in-place changes)
• Change summary: the change summary produced by the draft-policy skill

Instructions

1. Read the draft policy from the specified path.

2. Read ALL other policies in the policies/ directory. This is essential for cross-policy consistency checking.

3. Evaluate the draft on five dimensions:

Dimension 1: Clarity

• Is the language unambiguous? Could a non-expert employee follow the policy?
• Are responsibilities clearly assigned to specific roles (not "the team" or "management")?
• Are processes actionable with concrete steps, not just aspirational statements?
• Are terms defined where they might be ambiguous?

Dimension 2: Completeness

• Do the changes address every gap identified in the change summary?
• Are there any REDLINE comments referencing requirements that aren't fully addressed?
• Are there placeholder decisions ([DECISION REQUIRED]) that need human input before the policy is complete?

Dimension 3: Consistency with Other Policies

• Does any new language contradict existing policies in the policies/ directory?
• Common contradiction areas:
  • BYOD rules in acceptable-use vs. device restrictions in access-control
  • Retention periods in data-privacy vs. deletion timelines in other policies
  • Incident reporting timelines across different policies
  • Access control requirements that conflict between policies
• If a contradiction is found, flag it with both policy references and the specific conflicting statements.

Dimension 4: Regulatory Accuracy

• Are regulation citations correct? (e.g., does the text attributed to "GDPR Article 22" actually reflect what Article 22 says?)
• Read the relevant knowledge/frameworks/ requirements to verify claims
• Are regulatory requirements accurately represented — not weakened or overstated?

Dimension 5: Structural Integrity

• Does the new content follow the existing document's formatting and numbering?
• Are REDLINE comments properly placed on all new/changed sections?
• Is the table of contents / section numbering still consistent?

4. Produce a review decision:

Output Format

## Policy Review: [Policy Name]

**Reviewed by**: reviewer (checker role)
**Date**: [date]
**Decision**: APPROVED / APPROVED WITH COMMENTS / REJECTED

### Scores

| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Clarity | PASS / NEEDS WORK | [brief note] |
| Completeness | PASS / NEEDS WORK | [brief note] |
| Cross-Policy Consistency | PASS / CONFLICT FOUND | [brief note] |
| Regulatory Accuracy | PASS / INACCURACY FOUND | [brief note] |
| Structural Integrity | PASS / NEEDS WORK | [brief note] |

### Findings

[List each finding with line/section reference]

### Contradictions Found

[If any, list the specific conflicting statements across policies]

### Decision Rationale

[Why approved or rejected — specific reasons]

Decision Rules

• APPROVED: All dimensions PASS, no contradictions, no inaccuracies
• APPROVED WITH COMMENTS: Minor issues that don't affect compliance (formatting, clarity improvements). Comments should be addressed but are not blocking.
• REJECTED: Any regulatory inaccuracy, any cross-policy contradiction, any gap from the change summary not addressed, or any critical clarity issue that could lead to misinterpretation