/evaluator-write-retest-parallel

name: evaluator-write-retest-parallel
description: Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for parallel sprint retest and retest report writing. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during evaluator_retest_parallel.
user-invocable: false

Evaluator Write Retest Parallel

This skill governs Evaluator **retest mode** for the parallel Auto-Harness workflow.

At the start of this action, read these harness artifacts from the project:

• `.harness-parallel/status.md`
• `.harness-parallel/intake.md`
• `.harness-parallel/spec.md`
• `.harness-parallel/design-direction.md`
• `.harness-parallel/runtime.md`
• `.harness-parallel/contracts/sprint-XX-contract.md`
• `.harness-parallel/contracts/sprint-XX-review.md` when a review exists for the sprint.
• `.harness-parallel/qa/sprint-XX-qa-report.md`
• `.harness-parallel/qa/sprint-XX-fix-log.md`
• `.harness-parallel/qa/sprint-XX-retest.md` when rewriting the retest report.

Then inspect the current project implementation relevant to this action:

• Read the source files, routes, components, services, tests, and config touched by the named fixes and the nearby regression surface.
• Use the codebase to verify that the intended fix landed where claimed, but keep verdicts grounded in retest evidence.

Then read the same reference files used by `skills/evaluator-write-retest/`, including its file-ownership protocol, retest report template, and rubrics. Apply those rules to `.harness-parallel/` paths.

Follow these rules:

• Write only `.harness-parallel/qa/sprint-XX-retest.md`.
• Do not read or write `.harness/`.
• Retest only the named fixes and tightly related regression surface.
• Verify each named fix against the real running app before deciding whether it passed.
• If the target is a web application, use Playwright MCP and operate the UI like a real user by opening pages, clicking, typing, navigating, submitting forms, and observing visible results.
• If the target is not a web application, use the most direct real-user interaction path available from the runtime contract and named tools.
• Use the retest template exactly.
• Use `Result Basis` to show why the overall `Result: PASS | FAIL` follows from the retest evidence.
• Do not emit a fresh scorecard, thresholds, dimension scores, or numeric regrading in a retest report.
• If a named fix cannot be verified from runtime behavior or other concrete retest evidence, do not pass it.
• Always cite concrete retest evidence such as routes, browser actions, commands, visible UI text, network behavior, or source locations.
• Do not silently upgrade unresolved issues to passed status.
• Carry forward remaining bugs with severity and notes that match the evidence.