agentsclimarketplace

Firm pdca eval

Skill b2bforce/b2bforce/.agents/skills/firm-pdca-eval

Skills + workspace for AI agents in B2B service firms

Install
npx -y skills add b2bforce/b2bforce --skill firm-pdca-eval

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 2 stars2 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Independently evaluate a PDCA cycle against the acceptance criteria written before the work started, using deterministic checks first and an LLM judge second. Use before a cycle's Check, when verifying whether work actually met its criteria, or when a result needs a second opinion that is not the executor's.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

6.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

PDCA Eval

Scores one cycle against the acceptance criteria that were written before Do. Produces a verdict per criterion with evidence, and nothing else.

This is a separate step for a reason. When the same reasoning that produced the work also judges it, the judgement adds no independent signal — it shares the executor's blind spots and tends to confirm the work rather than test it. An evaluation is only worth running if it applies a check the executing step did not.

Read First

  1. The cycle file: workspace/pdca/{area}/cycles/{cycle-id}--{slug}.md.
  2. workspace/pdca/{area}/evals.md — regression tests and reusable checks.
  3. workspace/pdca/{area}/README.md — metric directions and roles.

Read the acceptance criteria before reading the Do Log, so the criteria frame the evidence rather than the evidence reframing the criteria.

When to Use

  • Before Check in firm-pdca-cycle. Required, not optional.
  • The user wants to know whether work actually met its criteria.
  • A result looks good and nobody has tested it against what was promised.
  • A previously fixed failure needs a regression check.

What You Receive

  • the goal and baseline,
  • the acceptance criteria as written before Do,
  • the raw evidence and the state of the target system,
  • the tool trace, if available,
  • the regression tests from evals.md.

You do not receive, and must not accept as evidence, the executing step's own narrative that the work went well.

Grader Order

Always in this order. Stop escalating once a criterion is decided.

1. Deterministic checks

Scripts, exit codes, file existence, frontmatter values, counts, string matches. These live outside the generating process, so they are the strongest evidence available.

Available in this repo:

CheckUse
scripts/validate-content-draft.shDraft structure and length
scripts/validate-content-ideas.shIdea backlog integrity
scripts/validate-content-readiness.shFirm, service, ICP, persona gates
scripts/validate-pdca-cycle.shCycle file structure
./validate-skills.shSkill definitions

Plus anything the criterion names: file present, count ≥ N, frontmatter field set, command exits 0.

2. Independent LLM judge

Only for criteria a script cannot decide — tone, positioning fit, whether a draft genuinely answers a buyer question.

Rules:

  • Run in a fresh session or a separate context when the platform allows it.
  • Judge against the criterion and the firm profile, not against the executor's explanation.
  • Cite the specific passage that decided the verdict.
  • Return uncertain rather than guessing. uncertain is a useful signal; a confident wrong pass is not.

3. Human

Escalate to the owner when:

  • a grader returned uncertain on a mandatory criterion,
  • deterministic and LLM graders disagree,
  • the criterion covers a high-risk, irreversible, public, financial, or reputational action.

Verdicts

Every criterion gets pass, fail, or uncertain, each with evidence.

Closing rules:

  1. A cycle may close as failed. Failure is a legitimate, useful outcome.
  2. A cycle may not close as successful, and its actions may not be scaled or standardized, while any mandatory criterion is fail or uncertain.
  3. Absence of evidence is uncertain, never pass.
  4. Do not soften a fail because the effort was substantial or the intent good.

Output

Write the verdict table into the cycle's ## Eval Results:

| # | Criterion | Grader | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|-----------|--------|---------|----------|
| 1 | Drafts pass validator first run | deterministic | pass | 3/3 exit 0 |
| 2 | Answers an uncovered buyer question | deterministic | pass | Ideas 14, 19, 22 |
| 3 | Tone matches firm profile | llm | uncertain | Drafts B and C read more promotional than profile allows |

Mandatory: 2 pass, 0 fail, 0 uncertain.
Overall: pass with a non-mandatory concern.
Escalated to owner: no.

Do not write anything else into the cycle file. Check and Act belong to firm-pdca-cycle.

Turning Failures Into Tests

Every confirmed, repeated failure becomes a regression test.

  1. Add the symptom, cause, fix, prevention, and automated check to workspace/pdca/{area}/errors.md.
  2. Add the corresponding check to workspace/pdca/{area}/evals.md so future cycles are graded against it automatically.

An errors.md entry with no matching check in evals.md is incomplete — nothing stops the failure from recurring.

errors.md entry:

## Draft published without a linked idea

- Symptom: draft frontmatter `idea:` empty, validator failed on close
- Cause: draft written directly, skipping the idea backlog
- Fix: created the idea retroactively, relinked the draft
- Prevention: check `idea:` before publishing
- Automated check: `scripts/validate-content-draft.sh`
- Regression test: evals.md #4
- Verified: 2026-07-31

Rules

  1. Evaluate against criteria written before Do. If criteria were written after, record that as a process failure and grade what exists.
  2. Deterministic before LLM, always.
  3. Cite evidence for every verdict. A verdict without evidence is an opinion.
  4. Never edit the criteria to fit the result.
  5. Never write Check or Act. Those are decisions; this skill only produces findings.

Testing Requirements

  1. Evaluate a cycle where one mandatory criterion clearly fails; confirm the verdict blocks a successful close.
  2. Evaluate a cycle with a missing piece of evidence; confirm uncertain, not pass.
  3. Add one failure to errors.md and confirm a matching check lands in evals.md.

Related Skills

SkillWhen
firm-pdca-cycleOwns the cycle; calls this skill before Check
firm-pdca-setupDefines the metrics and seeds evals.md

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.