Menu

Individual skill

junior-to-senior

0upvotes

Adversarial senior-engineer review for agent-generated plans, designs, and architectures. Treats the current output as junior work, constructs a senior reviewer whose domain expertise comes from live codebase research plus web research of current best practices, diagnoses altitude failures (too vague or too granular), then rewrites the plan into a scoped, state-of-the-art version. Use when the user says "junior to senior", "senior review", "review this like a staff engineer", when a plan feels hand-wavy or lost in details, or before committing to any agent-written plan.

skills/junior-to-senior/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 8470b263d82579bd5b563b1e4e494472d3f0457f

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 6, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
175
Repository last updated
Aug 7, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Junior to Senior

Assume the plan in front of you was written by a capable junior: fluent, confident, and trained on the past. Build a senior reviewer that is grounded in two things the junior was not — **this codebase as it actually exists** and **the state of the art as it exists today** — and let the senior tear the plan down and rebuild it.

This skill exists because agent-generated plans fail at two altitudes:

- **Fog** — the plan describes the high level fine ("add caching", "handle auth", "make it scalable") but never commits on the hard parts. No interfaces, no data shapes, no failure handling, no named libraries. An engineer reading it still has to make every real decision themselves.
- **Tunnel** — the plan dives into function signatures and file diffs but has no product vision. No statement of who this is for, what success means, what is out of scope, or why this approach beats the boring alternative. It optimizes a local detail while the shape of the feature is still wrong.

Both are altitude failures. The senior's job is to drag the plan to the right altitude *and* upgrade its substance past the model's training cutoff.

## The cardinal rule

**Every senior finding needs evidence.** A claim about the codebase cites a file and line. A claim about best practice cites a fetched source — official docs, release notes, an RFC, a postmortem — with a date. If web research is unavailable, the finding is labeled `[training-data, unverified]` so stale knowledge is never laundered as current truth. A senior who argues from vibes is just a louder junior.
Back to top