AgentSkillsCN

perspective-validation

为变更、工作流、数据结构或政策编制视角验证清单（PVC）报告。适用于开展社会技术评审、治理评审、运营就绪度评审，或当PR触及数据结构/钩子/技能/工具时，需提交PVC报告以供审查。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: perspective-validation
description: Create a Perspective Validation Checklist (PVC) report for a change, workflow, schema, or policy. Use when performing socio-technical review, governance review, operational readiness review, or when a PR touches schemas/hooks/skills/tools and needs a PVC report.
argument-hint: "[target] [risk_tier] [domain]"
disable-model-invocation: false
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, Git
context: fork
agent: general-purpose

Intent

Produce a PVC report (Perspective Validation Checklist) that scores the target against key non-type failure modes (human factors, governance, economics, adversarial security, loop stability, data governance, and legitimacy) with concrete evidence references and remediation actions.

Success criteria:

  • •A valid PVC report is written to docs/reviews/pvc/ and passes python skills/perspective-validation/scripts/validate_pvc.py
  • •Each non-N/A score is justified with at least one evidence reference
  • •Any FAIL/PARTIAL includes a concrete remediation action (P0/P1/P2)

References:

  • •CHECKLIST.md
  • •pvc_report_template.yaml

Inputs

ParameterRequiredTypeDescription
targetYesstringWhat to review (file/dir path, workflow name, or PR/change description)
risk_tierNoenumlow | medium | high (defaults to medium if unclear)
domainNostringDomain context (e.g., general, manufacturing, healthcare)
deploymentNostringDeployment context (e.g., local-dev, customer-facing, safety-critical)

Procedure

  1. •

    Scope the review: Confirm target, domain, deployment, and risk_tier

    • •If the target is a PR or branch diff, identify changed files and whether they touch critical paths (schemas/, hooks/, skills/, grounded_agency/, tools/, spec/)
  2. •

    Collect evidence: Read the minimum set of files needed to justify scores

    • •Prefer evidence anchors as file:path#Lline (or file:path:line if needed)
    • •When reviewing a change set, include at least one evidence item for “what changed” and “what it affects”
  3. •

    Score the checklist: For each PVC test ID (HF-101 … ECO-901), assign one of:

    • •PASS: explicitly satisfied with evidence
    • •PARTIAL: acknowledged but missing enforcement/measurement/runbook detail
    • •FAIL: absent
    • •N/A: not applicable to this target (include a brief reason in assumptions or in an action note)
  4. •

    Write the report: Create a new file in docs/reviews/pvc/ named:

    • •YYYY-MM-DD_<short-slug>.pvc.yaml
    • •Start from pvc_report_template.yaml, then fill it in completely
  5. •

    Validate: Run python skills/perspective-validation/scripts/validate_pvc.py

    • •If it fails, fix the report until it passes
  6. •

    Summarize actions: Provide the top remediation actions (P0 first), with crisp “what to change” and “where it lives” guidance

Output Contract

Return a structured object:

yaml
pvc_report_path: string  # Path under docs/reviews/pvc/
target: string
context:
  domain: string
  deployment: string
  risk_tier: low | medium | high
scorecard:
  HF-101: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  HF-102: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  HF-103: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  ORG-201: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  GOV-202: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  ECON-301: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  ECON-302: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  SEC-401: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  SEC-402: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  CTRL-501: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  ASSUR-601: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  ASSUR-602: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  DG-701: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  ETH-801: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
  ECO-901: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL | N/A
actions:
  - id: string
    priority: P0 | P1 | P2
    fix: string
    artifact: doc | workflow | policy | hook | test | benchmark | code
    owner: string
confidence: number  # 0.0-1.0
evidence_anchors: array[string]
assumptions: array[string]

Example

Example: Review a workflow DSL change

Input:

yaml
target: "schemas/workflow_catalog.yaml (new gates + recovery semantics)"
risk_tier: medium
domain: general
deployment: customer-facing

Output:

yaml
pvc_report_path: "docs/reviews/pvc/2026-01-29_workflow-catalog-gates.pvc.yaml"
target: "schemas/workflow_catalog.yaml (new gates + recovery semantics)"
context:
  domain: "general"
  deployment: "customer-facing"
  risk_tier: "medium"
scorecard:
  HF-101: PARTIAL
  HF-102: FAIL
  HF-103: PARTIAL
  ORG-201: FAIL
  GOV-202: FAIL
  ECON-301: FAIL
  ECON-302: N/A
  SEC-401: PARTIAL
  SEC-402: PARTIAL
  CTRL-501: PASS
  ASSUR-601: PARTIAL
  ASSUR-602: FAIL
  DG-701: FAIL
  ETH-801: N/A
  ECO-901: PASS
actions:
  - id: "DOC-001"
    priority: P0
    fix: "Add an operator-facing incident view schema and a minimal tabletop exercise for this workflow family."
    artifact: doc
    owner: "maintainers"
confidence: 0.7
evidence_anchors:
  - "file:schemas/workflow_catalog.yaml#L1"
assumptions:
  - "No runtime UI exists; report assumes log-based incident response."

Safety Constraints

  • •This skill is intended to be read-mostly.
  • •Only write under docs/reviews/pvc/ unless the user explicitly asks for additional changes.
  • •Do not include secrets/PII in evidence excerpts; prefer references/hashes over raw content.