AI Work Quality Review
Score AI work on correctness and craft, expose unsupported claims, and prioritize fixes before calling it done.
Before & after
Same prompt, same agent — the only difference is the skill.
I'd be happy to give you feedback on your social media posts. To provide meaningful evaluation, what specific criteria matter most to you - engagement potential, brand consistency, tone and voice, visual appeal, or something else? What's the platform and audience? Are these posts meant to drive awareness, engagement, conversions, or community building? Do you want me to focus on particular aspects like copy length, hashtag strategy, or visual composition? Once I understand what success looks like for these posts, I can give you my thoughts on how well they hit those goals.
SELF EVAL - SOCIAL MEDIA POST QUALITY ASSESSMENT
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK: Two-axis scoring (1-10 each)
X-axis: BRAND CONSISTENCY (voice, visual, positioning)
Y-axis: ENGAGEMENT POTENTIAL (shareability, comments, saves)
POST 1: "Quick productivity hack" (Instagram Reel script)
Brand consistency: 8.2
✓ Voice matches channel personality (energetic, actionable)
✓ Visual style on-brand (blue + gold, fast cuts)
~ Copy slightly longer than optimal (78 words vs 50-70 target)
✓ Hashtags relevant and niche-specific
Engagement potential: 6.8
✓ Hook strong (first 2 seconds would stop scroll)
✗ Payoff weak ("subscribe" instead of concrete result)
✗ No surprise or emotional arc
~ Call-to-action buried (should be at 3-second mark)
IMPROVEMENT: Add a before/after visual contrast to boost perceived value +40%
OVERALL SCORE: 7.5 (publishable, but needs hook tightening)
POST 2: Tutorial teaser
Brand consistency: 9.1
✓ Tone, visuals, positioning all aligned
✓ Clear value statement in first line
✓ Hashtags researched (trending in niche)
✓ Text hierarchy clear
Engagement potential: 8.4
✓ Strong opening hook ("Without this trick...")
✓ Specificity high (exact tool names, actionable)
✓ Likely to drive profile clicks
✗ Could benefit from controversy or novelty angle
Potential add: "Nobody talks about step 3" to create curiosity
OVERALL SCORE: 8.7 (high-quality, ready to publish)
POST 3: Behind-the-scenes photo
Brand consistency: 7.1
✓ Authentic, personal touch aligns with creator brand
✗ Background slightly cluttered (distracts from subject)
✗ Lighting flat (gold accent missing visual pop)
~ Caption uses casual voice but meanders (145 words, consolidate to 80)
Engagement potential: 5.2
✗ No clear ask or hook (feels like a diary post)
✗ Behind-the-scenes without insight (viewers want to learn, not just see)
✗ Low shareability (niche appeal only)
SUGGESTION: Reframe as "3 things I learned shooting this" to drive engagement +60%
OVERALL SCORE: 6.2 (needs repositioning for traction)
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ANALYSIS:
"Post 1 looks energetic but sacrifices clarity. Post 2 plays it safe - high polish but lacks edge. Post 3 feels self-focused; viewers want insight, not studio tours."
Counterpoint: Your audience values consistency and trust over viral tricks.
Verdict: Posts 1 & 3 need minor fixes. Post 2 is strong → publish first.
ACTION PRIORITY:
1. Tighten Post 1 hook (add before/after visual)
2. Publish Post 2 as-is
3. Reframe Post 3 or swap for stronger behind-the-scenes angle
CROSS-SESSION SCORE HISTORY:
Session 1: avg 6.8 | Session 2: avg 7.2 | Session 3: avg 7.1 (plateau)
Recommendation: Experiment with new format or storytelling structureAbout this skill
The work looks finished, but did it meet the request, or did the final summary just sound convincing? This review separates correctness from craft, ties each score to evidence, and challenges the strongest reason to lower it before you call the task done.
What it does
- Reconstructs acceptance criteria from the request and marks each as met, unmet, or unverified.
- Scores correctness and craft independently using anchored 0-10 scales.
- Distinguishes inspected artifacts, reported test results, assumptions, and missing evidence.
- Runs a grounded devil's advocate pass against the most consequential failure path.
- Identifies the smallest fixes or checks that would change the completion verdict.
- Produces a portable review record for comparisons across sessions without pretending it was saved automatically.
What you get
A concise assessment with two justified scores, a completion verdict, specific evidence, and prioritized next steps. Larger reviews include a requirement ledger and a reusable record of the assessed version and unresolved gaps.
Best for
Developers and teams reviewing AI-written code, documents, analyses, or completed work sessions before accepting the result or reporting it as finished.
SKILL.md preview
---
name: ai-work-quality-review
description: Review completed AI work on independent correctness and craft axes using acceptance criteria, evidence labels, anchored scores, and a mandatory skeptical challenge. Use when the user says "evaluate your work", "give this an honest score", "is this actually done?", "check for gaps before we ship", "your scores keep being too generous", "review this work session", or "compare this with last time".
---
# AI Work Quality Review
… (sign up to view the full skill)More development skills
View all Development skills →Performance Bottleneck Profiling: Node, Python, Go
Classifies a slowdown, gives exact profiler commands, reads the output, and proves the fix with same-conditions p95/p99 numbers.
Feature Scaffolding with Working Tests
Turn a short feature spec into code, runnable tests, and integration wiring that match your existing project.
Feature Flag Rollouts and Kill Switches
Design staged flag rollouts, verify rollback paths, and audit flag debt with explicit defaults, gates, and retirement plans.
Microcontroller Firmware and RTOS Engineering
Build and debug MCU firmware with bounded ISR/RTOS timing, safe DMA ownership, and measured power budgets.