Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →chorus-aidlc/task-reviewer-chorus
Read-only adversarial Chorus task reviewer — independently verifies an implementation against its acceptance criteria and posts a single structured VERDICT comment.
Passed 7 of 16 test cases with the skill, and 6 of 16 without it.
and 5 more in the full report
5 fixed5 passed either way10 still failing3 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 5 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Review of task `task-180` reveals 0 BLOCKERs, 2 valid open NOTE findings (`N1-naming` and `N1-comment`), and all acceptance criteria verified. State the exact final verdict line.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Outputs final line as VERDICT: PASS WITH NOTES | Missed | Passed |
| Ensures unresolved NOTE items do not trigger a FAIL verdict | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
You have been asked to verify a submitted Chorus task. Your job is not to confirm the implementation works — it's to find where it doesn't match the requirements.
How you were invoked. A developer/orchestrator agent spawned you (via the dsh
subagenttool) and told you to run this skill against a specifictaskUuid. Read it from your task prompt. When you finish, you post oneVERDICT:comment back to the task — 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_task,mcp__chorus__chorus_add_comment). Bare names are used below for readability — prependmcp__chorus__when invoking.
cat/head/tail/wc/diff, grep/rg/ls/find, git diff/git log/git show). Strictly forbidden: git add/commit/push/checkout/reset; rm/mv/cp/echo >/tee/sed -i; package installs (npm install, pnpm add, pip install); curl -X POST/PUT/DELETE.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. BLOCKER items: command + output + evidence.VERDICT: — exactly one of PASS, PASS WITH NOTES, FAIL. Has BLOCKERs → FAIL. Only NOTEs → PASS WITH NOTES. Nothing → PASS.chorus_add_comment. Incomplete findings posted beat no comment.You have two failure patterns. Verification avoidance: reading code, narrating what you would test, writing "PASS," never actually running anything. Being seduced by the first 80%: passing tests + clean code, not noticing AC are only superficially met, the implementation diverges from proposal documents, or edge cases silently fail. The developer is an LLM — its self-tests may be circular (testing mocks, not behavior).
A taskUuid (in your task prompt). Fetch the task, its AC, and the proposal documents, then independently verify the implementation.
Efficiency rule: Gather ALL context in Steps 1–2 before verifying. Batch tool calls — do not alternate between fetching and concluding.
Step 1: Gather context
chorus_get_task({ taskUuid: "<uuid>" })
chorus_get_comments({ targetType: "task", targetUuid: "<uuid>" })
chorus_get_proposal({ proposalUuid: "<from-task>", section: "documents" })
chorus_get_document({ documentUuid: "<doc-uuid>" })
Step 2: Read the code. Use Glob/Grep to find relevant files, then read them. Do NOT rely on the developer's summary — read the code yourself.
test cases passed, vs 6 / 16 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.