From harness-engineering
Evaluate incoming proposals, suggestions, or review comments on 5 axes and produce a principled Accept/Counter/Decline/Defer decision with explicit rationale. Use before acting on any external feedback to avoid blindly following suggestions.
npx claudepluginhub toru-oizumi/claude-harness-engineering --plugin harness-engineeringThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Evaluate an incoming proposal, suggestion, or review comment before deciding how to act on it.
Generates design tokens/docs from CSS/Tailwind/styled-components codebases, audits visual consistency across 10 dimensions, detects AI slop in UI.
Records polished WebM UI demo videos of web apps using Playwright with cursor overlay, natural pacing, and three-phase scripting. Activates for demo, walkthrough, screen recording, or tutorial requests.
Delivers idiomatic Kotlin patterns for null safety, immutability, sealed classes, coroutines, Flows, extensions, DSL builders, and Gradle DSL. Use when writing, reviewing, refactoring, or designing Kotlin code.
Evaluate an incoming proposal, suggestion, or review comment before deciding how to act on it. Produces a structured verdict with explicit reasoning — not just "what was said" but "whether it should be done."
Read the proposal carefully and extract:
Score each axis 1–3 and note a brief rationale.
| Axis | Score | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 1–3 | Is the claim technically correct? Are the premises sound? |
| Fit | 1–3 | Does it align with project conventions and CLAUDE.md? |
| Severity | 1–3 | How serious is the underlying issue? (Bug/Security=3, Style=2, Nitpick=1) |
| Value/Cost | 1–3 | Does the benefit justify the implementation cost? |
| Timing | 1–3 | Must this be addressed now in this PR/task, or can it wait? |
Total = sum of scores (max 15)
| Total | Default Action |
|---|---|
| 12–15 | Accept — implement as suggested |
| 8–11 | Counter — valid concern, but propose a better solution |
| 6–7 | Defer — acknowledge, create follow-up issue if warranted |
| 5 | Decline — reject with explanation |
The score is a guide, not a rule. Override with explicit reasoning if context warrants it. A score of 1 on Accuracy alone can override a high total (wrong premise = don't act).
For each proposal, output:
### [Proposal summary — one line]
**Accuracy**: N/3 — [rationale]
**Fit**: N/3 — [rationale]
**Severity**: N/3 — [rationale]
**Value/Cost**: N/3 — [rationale]
**Timing**: N/3 — [rationale]
**Total**: N/15 → **ACTION**
**Reasoning**: [1–3 sentences explaining the decision]
**Response to proposer**: [Draft reply text — be direct, not defensive]
| Action | What to do |
|---|---|
| Accept | Implement the change, reply "Fixed in <commit>." |
| Counter | Implement your alternative, reply with explanation of why your approach is better |
| Defer | Do not change code, reply with acknowledgement + link to follow-up issue if created |
| Decline | Do not change code, reply with clear reasoning — invite further discussion if appropriate |
pr-comment-handler — uses this skill in Step 2 (Triage) to evaluate each review comment