Review Card Rubric for Worker Output
SEO Slots
| Slot | Value |
|---|---|
| seo_title | Review Card Rubric for Worker Output |
| meta_description | Use a review card rubric to check worker scope, evidence, tests, links, schema, copy risk, and handoff quality before accepting delegated work. |
| slug | review-card-rubric |
| primary_query | review card rubric |
| secondary_queries | review card rubric, review card rubric checklist, review card rubric template |
| search_intent | operational checklist |
| canonical_path | /resources/claude-code-ops-cards-blog/review-card-rubric/ |
| og_title | Review Card Rubric for Worker Output |
| og_description | Use a review card rubric to check worker scope, evidence, tests, links, schema, copy risk, and handoff quality before accepting delegated work. |
Search Intent
operational checklist. The article must answer the reader's operational question before any commercial route appears.
Reader Artifact
Reusable checklist, table, or runbook from the article body. This artifact is the reason the article can be saved, cited, or reused by an operator.
Internal Links
- Hub: /resources/claude-code-ops-cards-blog/
- Related article: /resources/claude-code-ops-cards-blog/worker-card-template/
- Related article: /resources/claude-code-ops-cards-blog/pm-integration-handoff/
- Related article: /resources/claude-code-ops-cards-blog/done-evidence-ledger/
- Related article: /resources/claude-code-ops-cards-blog/handoff-patterns-template-pack/
- Tool/service route: /services/diagnostic-sprint/
Structured Data
Recommended schema: Article, BreadcrumbList. Keep BreadcrumbList aligned with /resources/claude-code-ops-cards-blog/review-card-rubric/. Do not add Product, Offer, Review, Rating, or FAQPage schema for this wave unless a later approved public page visibly supports it.
CTA Route
Primary route: /services/diagnostic-sprint/.
CTA label: Use the related checklist or diagnostic route.
CTA family: diagnostic_sprint.
Use this route only after the article artifact has clarified the next operational step. Public forms, accounts, and payments are intentionally not part of this resource page.
The CTA stays measured and specific, with no public payment or account route on this page.
Measurement
| Event | Name |
|---|---|
| event_view_article | view_article_claude_code_ops_cards_blog_review_card_rubric |
| event_click_artifact | click_artifact_claude_code_ops_cards_blog_review_card_rubric |
| event_click_cta | click_cta_claude_code_ops_cards_blog_review_card_rubric |
| utm_policy | No UTM on internal links; campaign UTMs only during approved external distribution. |
Public-Preflight NG Items
- Fake client proof, fake metrics, fake awards, or guaranteed outcomes.
- Public account, form, payment, repo, domain, or outreach route before checks pass.
- Unapproved cross-brand, unrelated monetization, or off-topic trust route.
- Unsupported claims about SEO, ranking, revenue, or tool behavior.
- Machine-like slug, broken internal link, missing schema plan, or missing measurement slot.
Review fails when every output is treated as either "done" or "not done." Real delegated work often sits between those states. A review card should let the reviewer mark PASS, REPAIR, or NO_GO with a reason.
That small distinction prevents two common mistakes: accepting thin work because it looks complete, and discarding useful work because one section needs repair.
The Review Card Structure
REVIEW CARD
Worker card reviewed:
Reviewer:
Review date:
Required outputs present:
Scope check:
Source check:
Evidence check:
Safety gate check:
Reader or user value check:
Decision: PASS / REPAIR / NO_GO
Required repair:
Acceptance note:Detailed Review Questions
| Area | Question | Evidence to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Did the worker edit only the allowed scope? | File list, diff, manifest |
| Inputs | Did the worker read and use the required inputs? | References, terminology, required headings |
| Output | Are all requested artifacts present? | File inventory, required sections |
| Internal consistency | Do links, filenames, slugs, and metadata match? | Manifest, article slots, canonical paths |
| Safety | Were approval-gated actions avoided? | Commands run, routes used, final notes |
| Value | Does the artifact solve a real operator task? | Checklist, rubric, table, runbook |
Common Review Failures
| Failure | What it looks like | Required repair |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence gap | "Completed" with no checks | Add commands, scan results, or manual QA |
| Scope drift | Adjacent folder edited | Explain, revert only if authorized, or isolate |
| Template thinness | Generic advice without fields | Add copyable card fields and examples |
| Route mismatch | CTA points to wrong service lane | Restore approved placeholder route |
| Schema creep | Extra schema added without visible support | Return to Article and BreadcrumbList |
Natural CTA
Use the rubric before accepting the next worker output. If several cards already exist but review states are inconsistent, the ops card diagnostic route can identify which cards need repair before the team starts an Implementation Sprint.