Review Rubric

Overview

Use this rubric when configuring your review step instructions — paste it into the step description so the reviewer has a structured framework to evaluate against. It works with both preset-based review steps and Subagent-based review workers. The rubric evaluates on two axes:

Delivery — Did the Implementation Solve the Problem?

Criterion	What to check
Semantic resolution	Does the patch fix the actual root cause, or does it paper over the symptom?
Contract adherence	Do public signatures, return types, error types, and API shapes match what the codebase expects?
Integration completeness	Are all affected call sites, validators, serializers, schemas, and compatibility layers updated?

Engineering — Is the Implementation Safe and Maintainable?

Criterion	What to check
Regression safety	Does the patch break anything that previously worked? Look for changed signatures, removed validation, altered error behavior.
Scope discipline	Is every change in the diff justified by the task? Unnecessary refactoring, extra features, and unrelated cleanup hurt here.
Maintainability	Is the code idiomatic for the repository? Is the logic clear? Are there dead paths, duplication, or half-finished constructs?

A patch can score well on one axis and poorly on the other. Code can solve the problem correctly but be unsafe to merge. Code can be clean and focused but miss half the required changes. Evaluating both independently gives a more useful signal than a single pass/fail.

Scoring

Score each criterion on this scale:

Score	Meaning
0 — Inadequate	Weak on this dimension
1 — Partial	Meaningful progress, but significant gaps remain
2 — Solid	Generally good, only limited issues
3 — Excellent	Very strong result

Interpreting Results

Overall assessment	When
Merge-ready	Both axes score ≥ 2 across all criteria
Small follow-up	One criterion is partial but the gap is bounded
Substantial rework	Multiple criteria have gaps or semantic resolution is only partial

Using the Rubric in Workflow Steps

Paste the criteria directly into your review step description so the agent evaluates against them:

### [ ] Step: Review
<!-- agent: sonnet-reviewer -->
Review all changes against the spec. Evaluate on two axes:

**Delivery**: semantic resolution, contract adherence, integration completeness.
**Engineering**: regression safety, scope discipline, maintainability.

Score each criterion 0–3. A patch is merge-ready when both axes score ≥ 2.
Record findings in `{@artifacts_path}/review.md`.

Get Started

Zenflow

Agents

Workflows

Customizing

Models

Integrations & MCP

IDE Plugin

CLIs

Admin

Resources

Overview

Delivery — Did the Implementation Solve the Problem?

Engineering — Is the Implementation Safe and Maintainable?

Scoring

Interpreting Results

Using the Rubric in Workflow Steps

​Overview

​Delivery — Did the Implementation Solve the Problem?

​Engineering — Is the Implementation Safe and Maintainable?

​Scoring

​Interpreting Results

​Using the Rubric in Workflow Steps

Overview

Delivery — Did the Implementation Solve the Problem?

Engineering — Is the Implementation Safe and Maintainable?

Scoring

Interpreting Results

Using the Rubric in Workflow Steps