timsmykov example-checklist
The second skill in the same domain. It exists to show why a plugin is needed at all: producing and checking are different procedures, but one subject area, one vocabulary and one set of templates.
When it applies
- The artefact is finished and has to be checked against formal criteria before it is handed on.
When it does not apply
- The artefact does not exist yet — start with
example-procedure. - The ask is to rewrite the text, not to find holes in it.
- Someone wants a subjective "is this good" verdict — this skill checks against criteria, not taste.
Procedure
- Read the artefact and reconstruct how it was built: what the inputs were, which features were used, what coverage is claimed.
- Work through the criteria below and give a verdict on each, anchored to a place in the artefact.
- Return findings ordered by severity. If there are none, say so plainly — do not manufacture findings for volume.
Criteria
| Criterion | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Traceability | every claim reduces to a specific source |
| Honest coverage | what was left out and why; the unreachable is named as unreachable |
| Gaps | empty values are shown as empty, not filled with plausible text |
| Substitution | a model conclusion is not presented as a result derived from data |
| Reproducibility | the description is enough to repeat the run and get the same result |
Quality gates
- Every finding points at a place in the artefact.
- Findings are not invented: "clean" is a valid verdict.
- Severity is differentiated: what would sink a defence and what is worth tidying do not go in one list.
Boundaries
- Does not verify that the sources are factually correct — only that the artefact holds together internally.