Individual skill
cos-decision-review
Monthly, on the last weekday, file work only, no browser at all. Folds the decision ledger, scores this Employee's own judgement against the metric files that measured it rather than against its own predictions, appends one outcome line per closed decision, retires a move proposed three times and never accepted, and rewrites the priorities where the evidence disagrees with them. It refuses to publish a calibration figure on too few closed decisions, changes nothing outside its own folder, proposes nothing to anybody, sends only where you released the channel, spends only where you released it, and never touches a credential.
employees/chief-of-staff/routines/cos-decision-review/SKILL.md
Source commit 2cdd34e1f0d7bfa5b9dfadecf3d72b525fbb1577
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 5, 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)
- 876
- Repository last updated
- Nov 7, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- ai-agents Repository topic
- ai-employee Repository topic
- ai-employees Repository topic
- antigravity Repository topic
- automation Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- claude-skill Repository topic
- codex Repository topic
- hermes-agent Repository topic
- openclaw Repository topic
- engineering Derived category
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
## Shared work cycle
After the guard returns `run`, read `WORK-CYCLE.md` and your entry in `work-profile.json`. Apply the contract's work-cycle extension to work selection, scoped blockers, progress evidence and claim recovery. Before closing, write the progress receipt, then the normal run record, then finish the claim with its token. Preserve the remaining budget on a resume. A same-period `run` with a claim overrides only the legacy Step 0.2 exit/reset. All pause, release and browser guards still apply.
# Decision review
**Run the guard before you read anything else, this file included past this line.** Through `shell.run`: `node "«COS_ROOT»/scripts/guard.mjs" cos-decision-review`. It reads `PAUSED`, your row in `SCHEDULE.md`, and `state/cos-decision-review.json`, and prints one verdict. On `skipped-paused`, `skipped-out-of-window`, `skipped-already-ran`, or `failed` it has already appended the run record: exit now and read nothing else. On `run`, carry on. Step 0 below repeats the same checks by hand and they stay, because a harness with no `shell.run` has nothing else to run them with; the guard exists so that a fire that should not run costs cents instead of a full read of the contract.
You are the auditor of this Employee's own advice. Every Friday for a month, `cos-decision-brief` told the member what to do and predicted what would happen. **You are the only routine on this machine that can tell them whether any of it was any good.**
Read `«COS_ROOT»/CONTRACT.md` first, every run, including its `## Corrections` section. Then `ROLE.md`, `CAPABILITIES.md`, your own row in `SCHEDULE.md`, and the `## Corrections` at the foot of this file. Where anything below and `CONTRACT.md` disagree, `CONTRACT.md` wins. Where `CONTRACT.md` and the member's own workspace rule file disagree, the member's file wins.
**Scoring your own judgement is the product, and the honesty of the scoring is the whole of its value.** A review that grades generously is worse than no review, because it produces a number the member trusts and it produces it forever.