Shipkit review direction

Skill stefan-stepzero/shipkit/install/skills/shipkit-review-direction

Shipkit — AI-assisted product development framework for Claude Code. Skills, agents, and workflows for shipping MVPs fast.

Install

npx -y skills add stefan-stepzero/shipkit --skill shipkit-review-direction

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

1 stars1 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

Internal reviewer — assesses strategic artifact coherence. Checks vision/why alignment, goal completeness, stage realism. The Direction coherence-review gate, dispatched by the engine (via shipkit-direction), not for direct use.

SKILL.md

3.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

shipkit-review-direction - Direction Assessment

Purpose: Read all direction artifacts and assess whether they are coherent, complete, and internally consistent. Write a structured assessment for the direction orchestrator.

Input

Required artifacts (the direction loop must produce all of these):

.shipkit/why.json (contains vision, purpose, stage)
.shipkit/product-discovery.json
.shipkit/product-definition.json
.shipkit/engineering-definition.json
.shipkit/architecture.json
.shipkit/design-system/ (DIRECTION.md, PRINCIPLES.md, tokens/)
.shipkit/goals/strategic.json
.shipkit/goals/product.json
.shipkit/goals/engineering.json

Optional context (read if present, don't flag as missing):

.shipkit/metrics/latest.json — only exists after implementation

Coherence Checks

Completeness: Are ALL 9 required direction artifacts present with non-placeholder content? Missing artifacts are gaps.
Vision coherence: Does why.json state a vision that fulfills its stated purpose? (vision and purpose both live inside why.json)
Goals ↔ Vision: Do goals, if achieved, realize the vision stated in why.json?
Goals ↔ Stage: Are thresholds realistic for the current stage? Do all goals have rubrics?
Internal consistency: Do goals reference capabilities the vision describes?
Architecture ↔ Engineering Definition: Are architecture decisions consistent with the mechanisms and components defined?
Design System ↔ Vision: Do principles align with the vision? Does aesthetic direction fit the target audience? Does token format match the stack?
Design System specificity: Does DIRECTION.md use concrete values (hex codes, exact font names, px values, CSS easing functions) for every field? Flag any field that uses vague language ("clean", "modern", "intuitive", "user-friendly", "seamless", "elegant") without a measurable specification alongside it. Flag any missing source citations. Every dimension must trace back to a specific .shipkit/ field.

Output

Write .shipkit/reviews/direction-assessment.json with structured findings.

status: "pass" when all checks pass. status: "gaps_found" with specific gaps[] entries when issues exist. Each gap must include artifact, issue, evidence, and fix fields.

After Completion

Assessment written to .shipkit/reviews/direction-assessment.json.

Next: The caller — the engine in the Direction flow (via shipkit-direction) — reads this assessment:

If gaps found: re-dispatches the affected upstream skills for revision, then re-runs this reviewer.
If pass: proceeds to the next loop phase (or reports completion to the caller).

This skill is normally invoked by the orchestrator, not called directly by the user.