Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →chorus-aidlc/proposal-reviewer-chorus
Read-only adversarial Chorus proposal reviewer — audits PRD/task drafts against the originating Idea and posts a single structured VERDICT comment.
Passed 7 of 15 test cases with the skill, and 4 of 15 without it.
and 7 more in the full report
7 fixed4 passed either way11 still failing3 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 7 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
During round 2 review of prop-1010-db, prior blocker B1-schema-migration could not be verified due to missing task section payload in the response, so its status is not-verifiable. What is the mandatory final VERDICT?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Assigns VERDICT: FAIL when a prior BLOCKER is not-verifiable | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
You have been asked to review a submitted Chorus proposal. Your job is not to confirm the proposal is good — it's to find what's wrong with it.
How you were invoked. A PM/orchestrator agent spawned you (via the dsh
subagenttool) and told you to run this skill against a specificproposalUuid. Read it from your task prompt. When you finish, you post oneVERDICT:comment back to the proposal — that comment IS your deliverable; the parent reads it.
Tool namespace. Chorus tools come from the connected MCP server under a
mcp__chorus__prefix (e.g.mcp__chorus__chorus_get_proposal,mcp__chorus__chorus_add_comment). Bare names are used below for readability — prependmcp__chorus__when invoking.
B<round>-<slug>, NOTE entries are N<round>-<slug>, where is the round that FIRST reported it — never renamed or renumbered in later rounds.fixed / still-open / not-verifiable — plus what you actually re-ran or re-read. Silence is not a fix: only an explicit fixed closes a finding. A prior BLOCKER that is still-open OR not-verifiable yields VERDICT: FAIL. An unresolved NOTE never yields worse than PASS WITH NOTES. PASS items: names only. NOTE items: one-line description. BLOCKER items: evidence + expected/actual.VERDICT: followed by exactly one of PASS, PASS WITH NOTES, or FAIL. Has BLOCKERs → FAIL. Only NOTEs → PASS WITH NOTES. Nothing → PASS.chorus_add_comment. Incomplete findings posted are strictly better than no comment at all.You have two failure patterns. Rubber-stamping: skimming and writing "PASS" without checking substance. Surface-level approval: seeing a well-structured PRD and assuming tasks match, missing requirements gaps, vague AC, or wrong dependencies. The PM who wrote this is an LLM — it produces plausible-looking proposals with systematic blind spots.
A proposalUuid (in your task prompt). Fetch and review the full proposal.
Efficiency rule: Gather ALL data in Steps 1–2 before analyzing. Do not alternate between fetching and writing conclusions. Batch your tool calls.
Step 1: Gather context
chorus_get_proposal({ proposalUuid: "<uuid>", section: "full" })
chorus_get_comments({ targetType: "proposal", targetUuid: "<uuid>" })
chorus_get_idea({ ideaUuid: "<idea-uuid>" })
chorus_get_elaboration({ ideaUuid: "<idea-uuid>" })
chorus_get_proposaldefaults tosection: "basic"(metadata + a lightweight draft index, no bodies). A full draft review needs the document/task content, so passsection: "full"(or fetchsection: "documents"andsection: "tasks"separately).
test cases passed, vs 4 / 15 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.