Aget Review Handoff

Instructions

When this skill is invoked:

1. Read Delegation

   • Load the original delegation (from session file, issue, or user-provided context)
   • Extract: objective, acceptance criteria, constraints, expected deliverables
   • If delegation has no explicit criteria, note "implicit criteria — review may be subjective"

2. Read Output

   • Identify what the agent produced (files, commits, reports, session notes)
   • Map each deliverable to the delegation's expected outputs
   • Note any undelivered items or unexpected additions

3. Compare Against Criteria

   • For each acceptance criterion: PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL with evidence
   • For each constraint: RESPECTED / VIOLATED with evidence
   • For each expected deliverable: DELIVERED / MISSING / MODIFIED

4. Score (Optional)

   • Process: Did the agent follow the expected workflow? (X/10)
   • Content: Does the output meet quality standards? (X/10)
   • Strategic: Does the output advance the broader goal? (X/10)
   • Scoring is optional — criteria comparison (step 3) is sufficient for accept/reject

5. Decision

   • ACCEPT: All criteria met, no constraint violations
   • ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS: Minor gaps, list conditions for full acceptance
   • REJECT: Criteria not met or constraints violated, provide specific rationale and remediation guidance

Output Format

## Handoff Review: [Delegation Reference]

**Agent**: [agent-name]
**Delegation Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Review Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]

---

### Criteria Assessment

| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence |
|---|-----------|--------|----------|
| 1 | [criterion from delegation] | PASS | [what satisfies it] |
| 2 | [criterion from delegation] | PARTIAL | [what's missing] |
| 3 | [criterion from delegation] | FAIL | [why it fails] |

### Constraint Check

| Constraint | Status | Notes |
|------------|--------|-------|
| [constraint 1] | RESPECTED | — |
| [constraint 2] | VIOLATED | [how] |

### Deliverables

| Expected | Status | Location |
|----------|--------|----------|
| [deliverable 1] | DELIVERED | [path/ref] |
| [deliverable 2] | MISSING | — |

### Scoring (Optional)

| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Process | [X/10] | [workflow adherence] |
| Content | [X/10] | [quality assessment] |
| Strategic | [X/10] | [goal alignment] |

---

### Decision: [ACCEPT / ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS / REJECT]

**Rationale**: [1-2 sentences explaining the decision]

**Conditions** (if ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS):
1. [condition 1]
2. [condition 2]

**Remediation** (if REJECT):
1. [specific action to address failure]
2. [specific action to address failure]

Implementation Guidance

Criteria Extraction Pattern

When reading a delegation, extract criteria from these common patterns:

# Delegation often appears in these formats:
CRITERIA_PATTERNS = [
    "acceptance criteria:",     # Explicit criteria section
    "success looks like:",      # Outcome-based
    "done when:",               # Completion-based
    "must:",                    # Imperative requirements
    "deliverables:",            # Output-based
    "V-test:",                  # Verification test (AGET convention)
]

Decision Logic

def decide(criteria_results: list, constraint_results: list) -> str:
    """Determine accept/reject from criteria and constraint results."""
    has_fail = any(c["status"] == "FAIL" for c in criteria_results)
    has_violation = any(c["status"] == "VIOLATED" for c in constraint_results)
    has_partial = any(c["status"] == "PARTIAL" for c in criteria_results)

    if has_fail or has_violation:
        return "REJECT"
    if has_partial:
        return "ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS"
    return "ACCEPT"

Implicit Criteria Handling

When delegation lacks explicit criteria (common in informal delegations):

Flag implicit criteria in the review: "Note: criteria inferred from delegation wording — no explicit acceptance criteria provided."

Constraints

• C1: Read-only — NEVER modify delegation artifacts or agent output during review
• C2: Evidence-based — every PASS/FAIL must cite specific evidence (file, line, commit)
• C3: Scope-bounded — only review against stated criteria, don't expand scope during review
• C4: Formulaic — follow the template structure; consistency across reviews matters more than prose quality

Relationship to Other Skills

Traceability