sk-review-alternatives

Imported from YogliB/ai (plugins/slash-kit/skills/sk-review-alternatives/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add YogliB/ai --skill sk-review-alternatives. Copyright stays with the author.

Review Alternatives

Evaluate up to 3 proposed alternatives and flag low-quality options. Read-only unless the user explicitly asks the reviewer to rewrite.

When to use

• After sk-alternatives generates options.
• When a user pastes alternatives and asks for a review.
• Before presenting alternatives to a stakeholder.

Input

For each option:

• Idea: short description
• Snippet (if present): minimal code or design example
• Pros / Cons: brief, balanced assessment
• Recommendation (if present): author's preferred option and why

Output contract

Return ONLY this block. No prose intro.

### Alternatives Review Findings

option:<n>: <tag>: <problem>. <fix>
totals: N irrelevant N duplicate N weak N strawman N missing-context N unjustified | verdict: pass / needs-revision

Or, when no findings:

### Alternatives Review Findings

Lean & valid. Ship.

Tags

• irrelevant: does not solve the actual problem or constraints
• duplicate: overlaps another option without a distinct trade-off
• weak: viable but worse in every meaningful dimension
• strawman: intentionally bad or only included to make another look good
• missing-context: omits a critical cost, risk, or constraint
• unjustified: recommendation not supported by pros/cons

Review criteria

1. Relevance: every option addresses the user's actual constraints.
2. Distinctness: options differ on at least one meaningful trade-off.
3. Fairness: pros and cons are balanced.
4. Completeness: each option mentions the main cost/risk/limitation.
5. Recommendation support: the recommendation follows from the comparisons.

Triage

Label each finding valid, false_positive, or unvalidated with a one-line reason. If zero valid findings remain, output exactly Lean & valid. Ship. and verdict: pass.

Rules

• One finding per line; problem then fix, separated by ". ".
• Sort findings by option:<n> ascending.
• Repeat issues per option if they span multiple options.
• Do not add new options; only review what is provided.
• Minor wording or disagreements are not findings unless they mislead.