assessing-qualitylisted

# Assessing Quality Produce reviews that guide improvement, not just identify problems: validate what meets standards, categorise issues by priority with root causes, and give specific "where to next" guidance for every issue. ## Output format Save to `work/<task-id>/review_v[N].md`: ```markdown # Review: [Artefact Name] v[N] **Reviewed:** YYYY-MM-DD **Artefact Type:** [Skill/Agent/Workflow/Documentation] **Applicable Standards:** [List] ## Summary [Overall assessment in 2-3 sentences] ## What Meets Standards [Validation of what works well — builds shared understanding] ## Priority Issues ### High Priority **[Issue Title]** - Symptom: [specific observation with location] - Root cause: [underlying reason] - Impact: [effect on purpose, audience, or standards] - Where to next: [specific, actionable fix guidance] ### Medium Priority [Same structure] ### Low Priority / Recommendations [Suggestions with rationale] ## Assessment Against Standards [Checklist from brief.md: [x] met, [~] partially met (specify gap), [ ] not met] ## Next Steps [Prioritised by impact] ``` ## Workflow ### Stage 1 — Prepare 1. Read the artefact fully. Note initial impressions; don't judge yet. 2. Read `work/<task-id>/brief.md` and extract its requirements checklist (the "Requirements Extracted from Standards" section). If that section is missing, identify applicable standards from the brief's context and extract requirements from those skills directly. 3. Note the artefact type and whether