# Constitution Compliance Review > Evaluate plugin commands, agents, and skills against Anthropic Constitution principles. Score alignment on reasoning-based vs rule-based instruction spectrum, identify improvement opportunities. Use when the user wants to audit, score, or review the quality of a command, agent, or skill — e.g. "review this skill", "audit this command", "is this agent well-written", "score this against constitutional principles", or "check this for rule-based patterns". Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/constitution-compliance-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/constitution-compliance-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/constitution-compliance-review/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/constitution-compliance-review --- # Constitution Compliance Review Skill ## Priorities ``` Clarity > Accuracy > Actionability ``` Clarity matters most because a confusing score helps no one. Accuracy ensures the score reflects actual alignment. Actionability means every finding should suggest concrete improvements. ## Goal Evaluate plugin files (commands, agents, skills) against the Anthropic Constitution's principle of reasoning-based over rule-based instructions. Produce a structured report with an overall alignment score (1-10), section-by-section breakdown, and specific transformation suggestions. This skill helps plugin authors understand where their prompts fall on the rule/reasoning spectrum and how to improve them. ## What Qualifies as Alignment The Constitution establishes that Claude performs better with judgment criteria and reasoning than with rigid rules. Alignment means: **High alignment (7-10/10):** - Explains *why* constraints exist, not just *what* they are - Provides judgment criteria for edge cases rather than exhaustive if/then rules - Describes desired outcomes and checkpoints rather than step-by-step procedures - Trusts the agent to use its intelligence for format and style choices - Uses rules sparingly, only where error costs are severe or predictability is critical **Mixed alignment (4-6/10):** - Some reasoning provided, but mixed with rigid procedures - Rules exist with partial explanations - Judgment criteria present but undermined by conflicting rigid templates - Over-specifies formatting or process details **Low alignment (1-3/10):** - Mostly or entirely rule-based instructions - Step-by-step procedures without reasoning - Rigid templates without flexibility - Rules without explanation of their purpose - Excessive enumeration of cases the agent could handle with judgment ## How to Conduct a Review Accept a file path as input. If no path provided, ask the user which file to review. 1. **Read the file** using the Read tool 2. **Analyze section by section**: - Identify the purpose of each section - Classify each as reasoning-based, rule-based, or hybrid - Note specific patterns (explained constraints, rigid procedures, judgment criteria, etc.) 3. **Score on the 1-10 scale** using the rubric in references/scoring-rubric.md 4. **Identify specific transformation opportunities**: - Quote the rule-heavy sections - Explain why they're rule-based - Suggest reasoning-based alternatives 5. **Output the structured report** Use your judgment about how granular to get. For a small file, review every section. For a large file, focus on the most impactful sections. ## When to Apply Strict vs Lenient Scoring **Be strict when:** - The file is a high-frequency command (commit, review, research) that shapes user experience - Rule-based patterns dominate the file - The consequences of brittleness are high (safety checks, git operations, destructive commands) **Be lenient when:** - The file includes some rules but provides reasoning for them - The domain genuinely requires predictability (security, error handling) - The author is clearly trying to balance judgment and structure The goal is improvement, not perfection. A score of 7/10 is excellent. A score of 9/10 is exceptional. ## Output Format Structure your review as follows: ### Overall Assessment - **Alignment Score**: [1-10]/10 - **Classification**: [Reasoning-based / Mixed / Rule-based] - **Summary**: [1-2 sentence assessment] ### Section-by-Section Breakdown For each major section: - **Section**: [Section name or quote] - **Score**: [1-10]/10 - **Pattern**: [Reasoning-based / Rule-based / Hybrid] - **Reasoning**: [Why this score? What patterns did you observe?] ### Transformation Suggestions For each rule-heavy section identified: **Current (rule-based):** ```markdown [Quote the actual text] ``` **Why this is rule-based:** [Explanation] **Suggested (reasoning-based):** ```markdown [Rewritten version with reasoning] ``` **Why this is better:** [Explanation of the improvement] ### Strengths What is this file doing well? Quote specific examples of reasoning-based instruction. ### Final Recommendation Should this file be rewritten? If so, what sections are highest priority? ## References - `references/scoring-rubric.md` — 1-10 alignment scale with examples at each level - Anthropic Constitution (January 2026) — "We generally favor cultivating good values and judgment over strict rules and decision procedures" (p. 5) ## Arguments $ARGUMENTS --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/iamladi) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.