Skip to content
All Skills

Ln 312 Review Findings Worker

Use when an evaluation coordinator needs normalized findings from target artifacts and research evidence.

Software Engineering|v1|Updated 7/14/2026|GitHub source
MCP get_skill({ skillId: "review-findings-worker-2b0c45f2" })

Use this skill with your agent

Create a free account and connect via MCP

Get Started Free
> **Paths:** File paths (`references/`, `../ln-*`) are relative to this skill directory.

**Type:** L3 Worker
**Category:** 3XX Planning

# Review Findings Worker

## Mandatory Read

**MANDATORY READ:** Load `references/evaluation_worker_runtime_contract.md`, `references/evaluation_summary_contract.md`
**MANDATORY READ:** Load `../ln-310-multi-agent-validator/references/phase2_research_audit.md`, `../ln-310-multi-agent-validator/references/penalty_points.md`
**MANDATORY READ:** Load `../ln-310-multi-agent-validator/references/premortem_validation.md`, `../ln-310-multi-agent-validator/references/cross_reference_validation.md`

## Purpose

- analyze the target artifact or diff
- convert evidence into normalized findings
- for `mode=story`: calculate penalty points across 30 criteria per `phase2_research_audit.md`
- for `mode=plan_review`: evaluate criteria #5, #6, #21, #28 only (no penalty accumulation)
- avoid narrative-only review output

## Mode Gate

- `mode=story`: full pipeline — pre-mortem, cross-reference, penalty points across 30 criteria, build fix plan
- `mode=plan_review`: applicability check, stack detection, evaluate criteria #5 (standards), #6 (library versions), #21 (alternatives), #28 (library features) only, normalize findings without penalty accumulation

## Runtime

Runtime family:
- `evaluation-worker-runtime`

Required manifest fields:
- `identifier`
- `phase_order`
- `summary_kind=review-findings`
- `operation=findings`

Recommended `phase_order`:
1. `PHASE_0_CONFIG`
2. `PHASE_1_LOAD_TARGET`
3. `PHASE_2_PREMORTEM` (mode=story, complexity >= Medium)
4. `PHASE_3_CROSS_REFERENCE` (mode=story, multi-story Epic)
5. `PHASE_4_CRITERIA_AUDIT`
6. `PHASE_5_PENALTY_CALCULATION` (mode=story only)
7. `PHASE_6_NORMALIZE_FINDINGS`
8. `PHASE_7_WRITE_SUMMARY`
9. `PHASE_8_SELF_CHECK`

## Workflow

### Phase 0: Config

Load runtime manifest, target identifiers, and any linked research artifact paths.

### Phase 1: Load Target

Load only the target artifacts needed for the review scope.

### Phase 2: Pre-mortem (mode=story)

Execute pre-mortem analysis per `premortem_validation.md`:
1. Skip for trivial Stories (1-2 tasks, no external deps, known tech).
2. Execute for Stories with complexity >= Medium (3+ tasks, external deps, or unfamiliar tech).
3. Tigers (evidence-based risks) feed Risk criterion #20 — add to risk table BEFORE penalty calc.
4. Elephants (unstated assumptions) feed Assumptions criterion #24 — add with `[pre-mortem]` tag, Confidence=LOW.
5. Paper Tigers (fears without evidence) — document and dismiss.
6. Include pre-mortem table in audit report.

### Phase 3: Cross-Reference (mode=story)

Execute cross-reference analysis per `cross_reference_validation.md`:
1. Skip if Epic has only 1 Story or all siblings Done/Canceled.
2. Load sibling Stories via `list_issues(project=Epic.id)`.
3. Check AC overlap (#25): structured traceability first, keyword fallback advisory-only.
4. Check task duplication (#26): structured match primary.
5. Include cross-reference findings in audit report.

### Phase 4: Criteria Audit

1. `mode=story`: evaluate all 30 criteria against Story/Tasks per `phase2_research_audit.md` Auto-Fix Actions Reference.
2. `mode=plan_review`: evaluate criteria #5, #6, #21, #28 only (standards + solution groups).
3. Cross-check claims against provided research evidence when present.

### Phase 5: Penalty Calculation (mode=story)

1. Assign penalty points per violation using severity levels from `phase2_research_audit.md` (CRITICAL=10, HIGH=5, MEDIUM=3, LOW=1).
2. Apply multiple-violation rules per `penalty_points.md` Calculation Rules.
3. Calculate total penalty points.
4. Build fix plan for each violation.
5. Format penalty audit table per `penalty_points.md` Report Format.

### Phase 6: Normalize Findings

Each finding should prefer structured fields such as:
- `id`
- `severity`
- `category`
- `subject`
- `evidence`
- `recommendation`

### Phase 7: Write Summary

Emit `summary_kind=review-findings`.

Payload must include:
- `worker=ln-312`
- `status`
- `operation=findings`
- `warnings`

Prefer these fields when available:
- `findings`
- `metrics.penalty_total` (mode=story)
- `metrics.criteria_violated` (list of criterion numbers)
- `metrics.fix_plan` (array of {criterion, action, severity})
- `metrics.premortem_summary` (when executed)
- `metrics.cross_reference_summary` (when executed)

### Phase 8: Self-Check

1. Remove duplicates.
2. Remove unsupported claims.
3. Verify penalty calculation matches `penalty_points.md` rules (mode=story).
4. Record `pass=true` only after summary write.

## Definition of Done

- [ ] Target artifact loaded
- [ ] Pre-mortem executed or justified as skipped (mode=story)
- [ ] Cross-reference executed or justified as skipped (mode=story)
- [ ] Criteria audit completed (30 for story, #5/#6/#21/#28 for others)
- [ ] Penalty points calculated and fix plan built (mode=story)
- [ ] Findings normalized
- [ ] Unsupported claims removed
- [ ] `review-findings` summary written
- [ ] Self-check passed

**Version:** 1.0.0
**Last Updated:** 2026-04-10
#agile-workflow#code-review#code#review

Related Skills

More skills in Software Engineering

Accessibility Standards

Comprehensive web accessibility standards based on WCAG 2.2 AA, with 38+ anti-patterns, legal enforcement context (EAA, ADA Title II), WAI-ARIA patterns, and framework-specific fixes for modern web frameworks and libraries.

#github-copilot#accessibilityMIT

Accord

Authoring unified specification packages across Business/Development/Design teams via staged elaboration (L0 Vision → L1 Requirements → L2 Team Detail → L3 Acceptance Criteria). No code. Use when authoring cross-team specs, building L0-L3 packages, or aligning Biz/Dev/Design on a single source of truth.

#broad-capability#developmentMIT

Acquire Codebase Knowledge

Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narrow code edits unless the user asks for repository-level discovery.

#github-copilot#documentationMIT

Acreadiness Assess

Run the AgentRC readiness assessment on the current repository and produce a static HTML dashboard at reports/index.html. Wraps `npx github:microsoft/agentrc readiness` and hands off rendering to the @ai-readiness-reporter custom agent. Supports policies (--policy) for org-specific scoring. Use when asked to assess, audit, or score the AI readiness of a repo.

#github-copilot#planningMIT

Acreadiness Generate Instructions

Generate tailored AI agent instruction files via AgentRC instructions command. Produces .github/copilot-instructions.md (default, recommended for Copilot in VS Code) plus optional per-area .instructions.md files with applyTo globs for monorepos. Use after running /acreadiness-assess to close gaps in the AI Tooling pillar.

#github-copilot#skillMIT

Acreadiness Policy

Help the user pick, write, or apply an AgentRC policy. Policies customise readiness scoring by disabling irrelevant checks, overriding impact/level, setting pass-rate thresholds, or chaining org baselines with team overrides. Use when the user asks about strict mode, AI-only scoring, custom weights, CI gating, or wants org-wide standardisation.

#github-copilot#planningMIT