How do I install the Response Rater skill?

Run npx skillmds add majiayu000/response-rater in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Response Rater safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: docs only. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Response Rater?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Response Rater free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Response Rater?

majiayu000 (@majiayu000) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Response Rater by majiayu000 — Agent Skill

Name: Response Rater
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: majiayu000

File contents

Response Rater Skill

Step 1: Define Rating Rubric

Use appropriate rubric for the content type:

For Plans:

Dimension	Weight	Description
Completeness	20%	All required sections present
Feasibility	20%	Plan is realistic and achievable
Risk Mitigation	20%	Risks identified with mitigations
Agent Coverage	20%	Appropriate agents assigned
Integration	20%	Fits with existing systems

For Responses:

Dimension	Weight	Description
Correctness	25%	Technically accurate
Completeness	25%	Addresses all requirements
Clarity	25%	Easy to understand
Actionability	25%	Provides clear next steps

Step 2: Evaluate Each Dimension

Score each dimension 1-10:

## Dimension Scores

### Completeness: 8/10

- Has objectives, steps, and timeline
- Missing risk assessment section

### Feasibility: 7/10

- Most steps are achievable
- Step 3 timeline is aggressive

### Risk Mitigation: 5/10

- Only 1 risk identified
- No mitigation strategies

### Agent Coverage: 9/10

- All steps have assigned agents
- Good agent-task matching

### Integration: 8/10

- Uses existing APIs
- Minor compatibility concerns

Step 3: Calculate Overall Score

Average the weighted scores:

Overall = (8×0.2) + (7×0.2) + (5×0.2) + (9×0.2) + (8×0.2) = 7.4/10

Step 4: Generate Recommendations

Provide actionable improvements:

## Recommendations

### High Priority

1. Add risk assessment section with 3-5 risks
2. Include mitigation strategies for each risk

### Medium Priority

3. Extend Step 3 timeline by 2 days
4. Add fallback plan for external API dependency

### Low Priority

5. Add success metrics for each step

Step 5: Make Pass/Fail Decision

Apply minimum score thresholds:

Task Type	Minimum Score
Standard	7/10
Enterprise	8/10
Critical	9/10

## Decision

**Score**: 7.4/10
**Threshold**: 7/10 (Standard)
**Result**: PASS ✅

Plan approved with recommendations for improvement.

Consistent Rubrics: Use same dimensions for comparable content
Clear Thresholds: Define pass/fail criteria upfront
Actionable Feedback: Provide specific improvements
Prioritize Issues: Order recommendations by impact
Document Rationale: Explain score justifications

Rate this plan for user authentication implementation

Response:

## Plan Rating: User Authentication

### Scores

- Completeness: 8/10 - Good structure, missing tests section
- Feasibility: 9/10 - Realistic timeline and approach
- Risk Mitigation: 6/10 - Only 1 risk identified
- Agent Coverage: 9/10 - Good agent assignments
- Integration: 8/10 - Compatible with existing auth

### Overall: 8.0/10 ✅ PASS

### Top Recommendations

1. Add risk section with security and dependency risks
2. Include test plan for each authentication flow
3. Add rollback procedure for failed deployment

Rules

Always use consistent rubric dimensions
Provide specific, actionable recommendations
Document score justifications

Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

Before starting:

cat .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

After completing:

New pattern -> .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
Issue found -> .claude/context/memory/issues.md
Decision made -> .claude/context/memory/decisions.md

ASSUME INTERRUPTION: Your context may reset. If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.

---name: response-raterdescription: Rates responses and plans against quality rubrics. Used for plan validation, response quality audits, and multi-agent consensus.--- # Response Rater Skill <identity> Response Rater - Rates responses and plans against quality rubrics. Provides scores, feedback, and improvement suggestions. </identity> <capabilities> - Rating responses against rubrics - Validating plan quality - Providing improvement feedback - Generating quality reports </capabilities> <instructions> <execution_process> ### Step 1: Define Rating Rubric Use appropriate rubric for the content type: **For Plans**: | Dimension | Weight | Description | |-----------|--------|-------------| | Completeness | 20% | All required sections present | | Feasibility | 20% | Plan is realistic and achievable | | Risk Mitigation | 20% | Risks identified with mitigations | | Agent Coverage | 20% | Appropriate agents assigned | | Integration | 20% | Fits with existing systems | **For Responses**: | Dimension | Weight | Description | |-----------|--------|-------------| | Correctness | 25% | Technically accurate | | Completeness | 25% | Addresses all requirements | | Clarity | 25% | Easy to understand | | Actionability | 25% | Provides clear next steps | ### Step 2: Evaluate Each Dimension Score each dimension 1-10: ```markdown ## Dimension Scores ### Completeness: 8/10 - Has objectives, steps, and timeline - Missing risk assessment section ### Feasibility: 7/10 - Most steps are achievable - Step 3 timeline is aggressive ### Risk Mitigation: 5/10 - Only 1 risk identified - No mitigation strategies ### Agent Coverage: 9/10 - All steps have assigned agents - Good agent-task matching ### Integration: 8/10 - Uses existing APIs - Minor compatibility concerns ``` ### Step 3: Calculate Overall Score Average the weighted scores: ``` Overall = (8×0.2) + (7×0.2) + (5×0.2) + (9×0.2) + (8×0.2) = 7.4/10 ``` ### Step 4: Generate Recommendations Provide actionable improvements: ```markdown ## Recommendations ### High Priority 1. Add risk assessment section with 3-5 risks 2. Include mitigation strategies for each risk ### Medium Priority 3. Extend Step 3 timeline by 2 days 4. Add fallback plan for external API dependency ### Low Priority 5. Add success metrics for each step ``` ### Step 5: Make Pass/Fail Decision Apply minimum score thresholds: | Task Type | Minimum Score | | ---------- | ------------- | | Standard | 7/10 | | Enterprise | 8/10 | | Critical | 9/10 | ```markdown ## Decision **Score**: 7.4/10 **Threshold**: 7/10 (Standard) **Result**: PASS ✅ Plan approved with recommendations for improvement. ``` </execution_process> <best_practices> 1. **Consistent Rubrics**: Use same dimensions for comparable content 2. **Clear Thresholds**: Define pass/fail criteria upfront 3. **Actionable Feedback**: Provide specific improvements 4. **Prioritize Issues**: Order recommendations by impact 5. **Document Rationale**: Explain score justifications </best_practices> </instructions> <examples> <usage_example> **Plan Rating Request**: ``` Rate this plan for user authentication implementation ``` **Response**: ```markdown ## Plan Rating: User Authentication ### Scores - Completeness: 8/10 - Good structure, missing tests section - Feasibility: 9/10 - Realistic timeline and approach - Risk Mitigation: 6/10 - Only 1 risk identified - Agent Coverage: 9/10 - Good agent assignments - Integration: 8/10 - Compatible with existing auth ### Overall: 8.0/10 ✅ PASS ### Top Recommendations 1. Add risk section with security and dependency risks 2. Include test plan for each authentication flow 3. Add rollback procedure for failed deployment ``` </usage_example> </examples> ## Rules - Always use consistent rubric dimensions - Provide specific, actionable recommendations - Document score justifications ## Memory Protocol (MANDATORY) **Before starting:** ```bash cat .claude/context/memory/learnings.md ``` **After completing:** - New pattern -> `.claude/context/memory/learnings.md` - Issue found -> `.claude/context/memory/issues.md` - Decision made -> `.claude/context/memory/decisions.md` > ASSUME INTERRUPTION: Your context may reset. If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.

Frequently asked questions