# Lowcode AI Run Review

> Review lowcode AI real-chain run records, classify import/evaluation/manual issues, and decide whether to observe, analyze, implement, validate, or route to frontend product follow-up. Not for spec generation or code editing.

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

---


# Lowcode AI Run Review

Review saved lowcode AI real-chain run records and choose one evidence-based next action. Do not generate, repair, implement, edit code, call a provider, or mutate a database.

This skill requires a persisted run record or equivalent saved real-chain artifact. If the evidence exists only in the current product UI, a non-persistent fresh work, Renderer screenshots, interaction observations, or hybrid evaluation state, use `lowcode-ai-product-loop` instead of treating the missing run record as a defect.

## Scope and evidence

- Start from the saved run record: `runId`, work id, page/input type, provider/model, timestamps, import/evaluation status, errors, diffs, persisted artifact refs, evaluator notes, and score details.
- Use manual notes and screenshots only as supporting context.
- Check whether the symptom repeats across runs, page types, or input patterns.
- Prefer run-record evidence over chat memory or subjective impressions.

If evidence is partial, state the exact minimum missing items before classifying with confidence.

Do not promote a persisted Phase 2a run into evidence that the current Phase 2b-3 product UI, import/Renderer, interaction, or terminal-state path has passed.

## Classification

- `Import issue`: output cannot be imported, persisted, parsed, normalized, or rendered.
- `Evaluation issue`: scoring, repeat key, evaluator result, or label is missing, noisy, inconsistent, or not actionable.
- `Manual issue`: human review finds a UX, semantic, layout, or fidelity problem not captured well by evaluation.
- `Input coverage issue`: samples are too narrow or omit needed page/input variants.
- `Frontend product follow-up`: editor UX, asset replacement, interactive adjustment, or product decisions own the issue.
- `No confirmed issue`: evidence shows no reproducible actionable failure.

Priority is evidence classification, not execution authorization. P0/P1 may justify requesting an implementation decision after analysis, but never automatically authorizes implementation, provider calls, DB writes, reruns, or a new task. Treat P2 visual/calibration mismatches as observation unless repeated evidence proves product risk.

## Decision

Choose exactly one primary action:

- `Observe`: weak, isolated, visual-only, or unreproduced evidence.
- `Analyze`: repeated symptom with unclear cause or owner.
- `Implement`: sufficient P0/P1 evidence and likely engineering ownership; this is a recommendation requiring separate authorization.
- `Validate`: an existing fix, evaluator change, or workflow claim needs a targeted rerun or matrix update; the rerun requires its own authorization.
- `Route`: editor/product workflow owns the issue.

Never recommend server hardcoding from one random sample.

## Evidence-insufficient output

Return `Evidence insufficient` or `Observe`, list only the minimum missing evidence, give a tentative bucket only when supported, and request the smallest concrete artifact, preferably a run record or `runId`.

## Output

```markdown
结论：<observe/analyze/implement/validate/route/evidence insufficient>
分类：<import/evaluation/manual/input coverage/frontend product/no confirmed issue>
优先级：<P0/P1/P2/Observation>
依据：<concise run-record evidence>
授权边界：<recommendation only / separate approval required, when relevant>
下一步：<one concrete evidence or decision request>
```