Event reviewer

Event Reviewer

Quality-check outputs from multiple event skills for consistency, completeness, and feasibility. Catches the gaps that individual skills cannot see because they operate independently.

When This Skill Activates

• User has outputs from 2+ event skills and wants a consistency check
• User asks to "review my event plan" or "check everything fits together"
• Before presenting a complete event plan to stakeholders
• After a major change to one skill's output that might affect others
• User asks if anything is missing or inconsistent

This skill does NOT: Generate event deliverables (use specialist skills). Does not replace individual skill verification gates (Step 3.5). Reviews cross-skill consistency that individual skills cannot check alone.

Step 1: Gather Outputs

Collect all available outputs from event skills. At minimum, need outputs from 2+ skills to provide value.

Skill	Key data points to extract
event-planner	Event type, format, dates, attendee count, objectives, timeline milestones
event-budget	Total budget, category allocations, revenue targets, cost per attendee
event-speakers	Session count, speaker count, CFP timeline, agenda structure
event-content	Email sequence timing, social calendar, content assets planned
event-logistics	Venue capacity, vendor contracts, run-of-show, load-in schedule
event-registration	Ticket tiers, pricing, capacity, form fields, GDPR consent
event-sponsors	Tier structure, pricing, benefits promised, attendee data commitments
event-marketing	Channel plan, promotion timeline, registration targets, budget
event-analytics	KPIs defined, survey planned, ROI measurement method
event-exhibition	Booth specs, staffing plan, lead capture goals, budget

Step 2: Run Consistency Checks

Machine-readable thresholds and weights for automated evaluation are available in tests/evaluation-rubrics.json.

Check 1: Numbers Alignment

Rule	Pass	Warn	Fail
Attendee count across skills	All match exactly	±5% variance	>5% variance
Speaker count vs. agenda slots	Count ≤ slots	Count = slots + 1-2	Count > slots + 3
Registration capacity vs. venue capacity	Reg ≤ venue	Reg = venue (no buffer)	Reg > venue
Sponsor count vs. booth allocation	Sponsors ≤ booths	Sponsors = booths (no spare)	Sponsors > booths

Check 2: Timeline Alignment

Rule	Pass	Warn	Fail
Marketing start vs. registration open	Marketing ≥ T-2 weeks before reg	Same week	Marketing after registration
Speaker confirmation vs. agenda publish	Speakers confirmed before agenda	Same week	Agenda published with unconfirmed speakers
Content delivery vs. send dates	Content ready ≥ 3 days before send	1-2 days before	Content not ready at send time
Early-bird deadline vs. campaign end	≥4 weeks of promotion before deadline	2-3 weeks	<2 weeks
CFP open period	≥4 weeks	2-3 weeks	<2 weeks

Check 3: Budget Alignment

Rule	Pass	Warn	Fail
Category sum vs. total	Sum = total ±1%	±1-3% (rounding)	>3% variance
Speaker budget vs. speaker count × fee	Budget ≥ count × min fee	Budget = count × min fee (no buffer)	Budget < count × min fee
Venue budget vs. venue quote	Budget ≥ quote	Budget = quote (no contingency)	Budget < quote
Contingency reserve	≥10% of total	5-10%	<5% or missing
Ticket revenue vs. registration pricing × expected	Revenue ≥ pricing × 80% of target	Revenue = pricing × 60-80%	Revenue < pricing × 60%

Check 4: Capacity Alignment

Rule	Pass	Warn	Fail
Venue capacity vs. target attendance	Venue ≥ 110% of target	Venue = 100-110%	Venue < target
Catering count vs. registration	Catering ≥ registered + 5%	Catering = registered	Catering < registered
Breakout room capacity vs. track attendance	Room ≥ expected per track	Room = expected	Room < expected
Booth allocation vs. floor space	All booths fit with circulation	Tight fit, minimal circulation	Not enough space

Check 5: Data Protection Compliance

Validates regional data protection rules:

• EU/EEA events: GDPR — double opt-in for DE/AT, standard consent elsewhere
• Singapore/APAC: PDPA — opt-in consent, broadly mirrors GDPR
• US events: State laws where applicable (CCPA for California residents)
• Default: Apply GDPR-equivalent consent as baseline for any region

Rule	Pass	Warn	Fail
Sponsor data sharing vs. consent checkbox	Consent checkbox exists for each sponsor tier promising attendee data	Checkbox exists but wording is vague	No consent checkbox but data sharing promised
Photo/video consent vs. content plan	Consent mechanism defined and implemented	Consent planned but not yet implemented	Content plan includes photos/videos without consent mechanism
Data retention stated	Retention periods defined in registration privacy notice	Retention mentioned but no specific periods	No retention information
Marketing consent vs. email plan	Double opt-in for all marketing emails (DE/AT mandatory)	Single opt-in with clear unsubscribe	No consent mechanism for marketing emails

Format-Aware Check Adjustment:

• Virtual events: Skip venue capacity, catering count, load-in schedule, and booth allocation checks
• Hybrid events: Apply venue/catering checks to in-person count only (use attendee_count_in_person if available, not total attendee_count)
• In-person events: All checks apply

Check 6: Content Completeness

Rule	Pass	Warn	Fail
Timeline milestones with content	Every milestone has corresponding content piece	1-2 milestones without content	>2 milestones without content
Speaker bios for confirmed speakers	All confirmed speakers have bios	Missing 1-2 bios	Missing >2 bios
Registration confirmation email	Email drafted and reviewed	Email drafted, not reviewed	No confirmation email
Post-event communications	All segments covered (attendees, speakers, sponsors, no-shows)	1 segment missing	>1 segment missing

Step 3: Generate Review Report

Report output format:

## Review Summary
- **Status**: PASS / WARN / FAIL
- **Checks run**: X/6
- **Critical issues**: [count]
- **Warnings**: [count]

## Detailed Results
| Check | Rule | Expected | Actual | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Numbers | Attendee count | 500 across all skills | 500 (planner), 480 (budget) | WARN |

## Recommended Actions
1. [CRITICAL] Align attendee count — update event-budget to 500
2. [WARN] Add contingency to venue budget — use the event-budget skill

## Prescriptive Remediation
For each CRITICAL/WARN finding, provide:
| # | Finding | Fix Command | Skill | Input Change | Expected Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Attendee mismatch (500 vs 480) | Re-run event-budget with attendee_count=500 | event-budget | attendee_count: 500 | Budget recalculated for 500 |
| 2 | No contingency | Add 10% contingency line | event-budget | Add contingency: 10% | Budget + 10% contingency |

For each finding: cite the specific values from each skill, state the impact, and name the skill responsible for the fix. The prescriptive remediation table must specify the exact input change needed — not just "fix it" but "change X to Y in skill Z."

Step 3.5: Verification Gate

1. All provided outputs reviewed: No skill output was skipped
2. Issues are specific: Each finding cites exact numbers/dates, not vague concerns
3. Recommendations are actionable: Each issue has a clear fix with responsible skill identified
4. Priority is clear: Critical vs. warning vs. gap distinction maintained

Step 4: Cross-Skill References

• Fix budget issues: "For budget adjustments, use the event-budget skill"
• Fix timeline issues: "For timeline changes, use the event-planner skill"
• Fix content gaps: "For missing content, use the event-content skill"
• Orchestrate fixes: "For coordinating changes across multiple skills, use the event-orchestrator skill"

Output Format

• Review summary: status (PASS / WARN / FAIL), check counts, critical and warning counts
• Detailed results table: Check / Rule / Expected / Actual / Status — cite exact values from each skill
• Recommended actions: numbered list, prefixed with [CRITICAL] / [WARN] / [GAP], each with a fix command and responsible skill
• Prescriptive remediation table: # / Finding / Fix Command / Skill / Input Change / Expected Result
• No new deliverables generated — reviewer only validates existing outputs

Examples

Example 1: Budget-timeline mismatch

User provides: Event brief (500 attendees), budget (150K), speaker plan (30 speakers with fees) Finding: Speaker budget allocates 33% of total for 30 speakers (avg 1,667 per speaker), but 5 keynotes at 3-7% of total budget each consume 17-33% alone, leaving 0-17% for 25 remaining speakers. Recommendation: Adjust speaker budget to ~47% of total or reduce keynote count to 3.

Example 2: Registration-marketing gap

User provides: Registration plan (early-bird ends T-6 weeks), marketing plan (promotion starts T-8 weeks) Finding: Only 2 weeks between promotion start and early-bird deadline. Benchmark: 4-6 weeks needed for early-bird conversion. Recommendation: Either extend early-bird to T-4 weeks or start promotion at T-10 weeks.

Example 3: GDPR inconsistency

User provides: Sponsor package (Platinum gets full attendee list), registration form (no sponsor data-sharing consent checkbox) Finding: Platinum tier promises attendee data but registration form has no consent mechanism. This is a GDPR violation for EU events. Recommendation: Add explicit sponsor data-sharing consent to registration form with named sponsors.

Edge Cases

• Only 2 skills provided: Run available checks, note which cross-checks cannot be performed, recommend completing other skills first.
• Outputs from different time periods: Flag if outputs may be based on different assumptions (e.g., budget from January, speaker plan from March with different attendee target).
• User disagrees with finding: Explain the reasoning, cite the benchmark, but respect user's final decision. Document the accepted risk.
• No issues found: Confirm consistency and list which checks passed. Recommend areas to monitor as plans evolve.
• Major inconsistency cascade: If one change affects 3+ other skills, recommend using event-orchestrator to manage the update sequence.