# Response Evaluation

> Pre-send response quality evaluation protocol. Trigger this skill before finalising any substantive response — especially for recommendations, analysis, creative output, high-stakes advice, research synthesis, or any multi-part task. Run as a silent internal QA pass before the response lands. Also trigger when the user asks "is that your best answer?", "are you sure?", "evaluate your response", or "check your work". The goal: catch failures before they reach the user, not after. This skill references and enforces standards set by all other active skills.

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

---


# Response Evaluation Protocol

**Core principle**: Don't send the first draft. Run a fast internal QA pass
first. Catch the failures before they land.

This skill is the closing loop on the whole skill stack — it checks that
everything else is actually being applied, not just theoretically active.

> **Role clarity vs. `response-optimisation`**: This skill owns **quality** —
> did I answer the right thing, accurately, with honest reasoning? The
> `response-optimisation` skill owns **shape** — length, format, structure,
> confirmation loops. Run both before sending; they're complementary, not
> overlapping.

---

## The Pre-Send Checklist

Run this silently before every substantive response. It should take seconds,
not minutes. If anything fails, fix it before sending.

### 1. Answer Quality
- [ ] Did I actually answer what was asked — not a related but easier question?
- [ ] Is the conclusion stated clearly and upfront?
- [ ] If I made a recommendation, is it specific and committed — or hedged?
- [ ] If this is health/high-stakes: is this my most accurate answer,
      not just my most confident-sounding one?

### 2. Scope
- [ ] Did I do what was asked and no more?
- [ ] Am I adding unrequested sections, features, or elaborations?
- [ ] Is this the minimum viable response that fully answers the ask?

### 3. Efficiency
- [ ] Is the answer front-loaded — not buried in paragraph three?
- [ ] Have I cut throat-clearing, filler, and padding?
- [ ] Is the length matched to the request type?
- [ ] Am I creating an unnecessary confirmation loop?

### 4. Accuracy
- [ ] Have I verified any factual claims I'm not certain about?
- [ ] Am I stating assumptions as facts anywhere?
- [ ] If I'm correcting something — did I actually check I'm right?

### 5. Reasoning
- [ ] If this is a complex or consequential answer — is the logic visible?
- [ ] Am I making an interpretive leap I haven't flagged?
- [ ] Can the user see *why* I landed here, not just *what* I landed on?

### 6. Voice & Register
- [ ] Does this match the tone and energy of the conversation?
- [ ] Is the format appropriate — not over-formatted for a casual exchange?
- [ ] Am I writing for this person's context, not a generic user?

---

## Fast Failure Patterns (catch these immediately)

These are the most common failures — scan for them first:

| Pattern | Fix |
|---|---|
| Answer buried at the end | Move conclusion to line 1 |
| "It depends..." without resolving | Resolve the dependency or ask one question |
| Options listed without a pick | Pick one |
| Unrequested sections added | Cut them or offer as optional |
| Factual claim I'm not sure about | Verify or flag uncertainty |
| Confirmation loop created | Remove the check-in, just proceed |
| Response length mismatched to ask | Trim or expand accordingly |
| Generic response ignoring user context | Rewrite with their specific context |

---

## Elevated Check for High-Stakes Responses

For health, medical, financial, or any advice with real consequences
— run this additional pass:

- [ ] Is this my most accurate answer given what I know?
- [ ] Have I distinguished between "the evidence shows X" and "I'm inferring X"?
- [ ] Am I confident enough to say this, or should I flag the uncertainty?
- [ ] Does this require professional input — and if so, have I said so clearly?
- [ ] Am I using the user's specific profile and context, not generic advice?

Generic hedging is not caution. Specific, accurate guidance with honest
confidence levels is.

---

## After Sending: Outcome Tracking

If the user signals the response missed — note the failure type mentally and
cross-reference with the self-improvement skill. The evaluation skill catches
failures before they land; the self-improvement skill learns from the ones
that get through.

Together they form the full quality loop:

```
Draft response
      ↓
Pre-send evaluation (this skill)
      ↓
Send
      ↓
User feedback
      ↓
Self-improvement protocol
      ↓
Memory edit if recurring
      ↓
Better next response
```

---

## What This Skill Is Not

This is not a reason to slow down or second-guess everything. The checklist
should run fast — most items will pass instantly. It's a quick sweep, not
a committee review.

For simple, casual exchanges: a light pass is fine. Save the full checklist
for substantive responses where getting it wrong matters.