sow-review

SOW Review — Quality Assessment & Adversarial Analysis

1. Overview

This skill reviews Statement of Work documents against 8 quality dimensions, producing a structured scorecard with actionable recommendations. It includes an adversarial pass that role-plays as both client and vendor to identify exploitable gaps.

Inputs:

• SOW document (required) — path to markdown or docx file
• Addenda (optional) — estimation docs, PERT Excel, appendices, meeting notes
• Corporate standards (optional) — company templates, style guides, or previous SOWs for compliance checking

Connector support:

• If ~~knowledge base is connected: pull corporate templates and standards automatically
• If ~~chat is connected: post review summaries to stakeholders

---

2. Pipeline

Step 1 — Document Ingestion

Read the SOW and all addenda. Determine:

• Mode: full (15-section) or summary (9-section) based on document structure
• Language: detect from content
• Completeness: which sections are present, which are missing

If corporate standards are provided (or available via ~~knowledge base), load them for comparison.

Step 2 — Domain Research (optional)

Activation criteria: the user explicitly requests domain-specific validation, OR the SOW covers a regulated domain (public procurement, healthcare, financial services) where industry-standard requirements apply.

If activated, dispatch parallel subagents to research relevant standards:

• Public sector SOW → research current procurement regulations (e.g., Codice degli Appalti D.Lgs. 36/2023)
• SaaS SOW → research standard SLA benchmarks for the industry
• Healthcare SOW → research HIPAA/regulatory requirements

Each subagent receives relevant SOW excerpts (not the full document) and returns findings that feed into the dimensional analysis.

Step 3 — Dimensional Analysis

Score each of the 8 dimensions on a 1-5 scale. Read references/review-checklist.md for the detailed rubric per dimension and score level.

For each dimension:

1. Evaluate against the rubric criteria
2. Assign a score (1-5)
3. List specific evidence supporting the score
4. Identify issues (things that need fixing)
5. Suggest improvements (things that would raise the score)

The 8 dimensions:

Dimension	What it checks
Completeness	All critical sections present? Missing sections flagged. Full: 15. Summary: 9.
Clarity	Scope unambiguous? Requirements measurable? No vague language?
Consistency	Deliverables in scope match deliverables table? Milestones aligned with timeline?
Risk Coverage	Risks identified? Mitigations actionable? Assumptions explicit? Dependencies documented?
Commercial Adequacy	Payment terms clear? Change process defined? Penalties proportionate?
Collaboration Model	Roles defined? RACI complete? Governance clear? Escalation paths documented?
Best Practice Adherence	Follows PMI/PMBOK patterns? Exclusions explicit? Acceptance criteria per deliverable?
Corporate Standards	If provided: formatting, terminology, required clauses, branding compliance

If no corporate standards are provided, score Corporate Standards as N/A and compute the overall grade from 7 dimensions.

Step 4 — Adversarial Pass

Role-play two adversarial perspectives. Read references/common-pitfalls.md for known exploitation patterns.

As the Client:

• What scope ambiguity could the vendor exploit to deliver less?
• Where could the vendor claim something is "out of scope" to avoid work?
• Are there enough controls to ensure quality?
• Could the vendor substitute less-qualified team members?

As the Vendor:

• What scope ambiguity could the client exploit to demand more?
• Are there unbounded obligations ("as needed", "all reasonable efforts")?
• Could the client delay acceptance indefinitely?
• Are penalties disproportionate to contract value?

For each exploitable gap, describe the scenario and recommend a specific fix.

Step 5 — Report Generation

Produce a structured review report with these sections:

Scorecard

Dimension	Score (1-5)	Key Evidence
Completeness	{SCORE}	{EVIDENCE}
Clarity	{SCORE}	{EVIDENCE}
Consistency	{SCORE}	{EVIDENCE}
Risk Coverage	{SCORE}	{EVIDENCE}
Commercial Adequacy	{SCORE}	{EVIDENCE}
Collaboration Model	{SCORE}	{EVIDENCE}
Best Practice Adherence	{SCORE}	{EVIDENCE}
Corporate Standards	{SCORE} or N/A	{EVIDENCE}
Overall	{AVG}

Overall grade interpretation:

• 4.5-5.0: Ready for signature
• 3.5-4.4: Minor improvements recommended
• 2.5-3.4: Significant gaps — revise before signing
• 1.5-2.4: Major rework needed
• 1.0-1.4: Fundamental issues — reconsider approach

Critical Issues

Must-fix items before signing: missing sections, contradictions, legal gaps, unbounded obligations.

Improvements

Should-fix items for quality: vague language, missing traceability, weak acceptance criteria, incomplete RACI.

Adversarial Challenges

"If I were the client/vendor, I would exploit..." scenarios with specific fixes.

Standards Compliance (if applicable)

Checklist of corporate standard requirements with pass/fail per item.

Save the report to docs/outbox/<project-name>-sow-review.md.

---

3. Progressive Disclosure

Step	Documents to Read
Steps 1-2	(no references — document ingestion and research)
Step 3	references/review-checklist.md + references/best-practices.md
Step 4	references/common-pitfalls.md
Step 5	(no references — report generation)

---

4. Integration with Other Skills

• After sow-write: run sow-review on the generated SOW to identify gaps before sharing with stakeholders
• Before sow-estimate: review ensures the SOW's scope and phases are well-defined enough for WBS extraction
• Feedback loop: review findings can be fed back into sow-write for targeted revisions