Coding

structured-output

Try it

Formats review deliverables with consistent structure for comparable findings

What it does

Formats review deliverables with consistent structure for comparable findings

The skill document

Night Market Skill — ported from claude-night-market/imbue. For the full experience with agents, hooks, and commands, install the Claude Code plugin.

Table of Contents

Structured Output

When To Use

  • When finalizing any review or analysis.
  • To format findings in a consistent way that names specific next steps.
  • Before presenting results to stakeholders or committing them to documentation.

When NOT To Use

  • Capturing evidence during analysis - use proof-of-work
  • Reviewing changes - use diff-analysis or review-core first

Activation Patterns

Trigger Keywords: format, structure, deliverable, report, organize, present, consistent Contextual Cues:

  • "format this as a report" or "structure the output"
  • "create a deliverable" or "present these findings"
  • "organize this consistently" or "standardize the format"
  • "make this actionable" or "prepare for stakeholders"

Auto-Load When: Finalizing any analysis deliverable or when consistent formatting is requested.

Required TodoWrite Items

  1. structured-output:template-selected
  2. structured-output:findings-formatted
  3. structured-output:actions-assigned
  4. structured-output:appendix-attached

Mark each item complete as you finish the corresponding step.

Step 1: Select Template (structured-output:template-selected)

  • Choose output format based on deliverable type:
    • Review Report: Summary, Findings, Recommendations, Evidence.
    • PR Description: Summary, Changes, Test Plan, Notes.
    • Release Notes: Highlights, Breaking Changes, Fixes, Credits.
    • Incident Report: Timeline, Impact, Root Cause, Remediation.
  • Confirm audience and required detail level.

Step 2: Format Findings (structured-output:findings-formatted)

  • Use consistent finding structure:
    ### [SEVERITY] Finding Title
    **Location**: file.rs:123
    **Category**: Security | Performance | Correctness | Style
    **Description**: Brief explanation of the issue.
    **Evidence**: [E1, E2] - Reference to evidence log.
    **Recommendation**: Specific remediation steps.
    
    Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.
  • Severity levels: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, INFO.
  • Order findings by severity, then by file location.

Step 3: Assign Actions (structured-output:actions-assigned)

  • Convert findings to action items with assignee and priority:
    ## Action Items
    - [ ] [HIGH] Fix SQL injection in auth.py:45 (@security-team, P1)
    - [ ] [MEDIUM] Add input validation to API endpoint (@backend, P2)
    - [ ] [LOW] Update deprecated dependency (@devops, P3)
    
    Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.
  • Include owner assignment where known.
  • Add priority indicators (P1/P2/P3) for triage.
  • Note dependencies between actions.

Step 4: Attach Appendix (structured-output:appendix-attached)

  • Compile supporting materials:
    ## Appendix
    ### A. Commands Run
    [Full evidence log from imbue:proof-of-work]
    
    ### B. External References
    [Citations and documentation links]
    
    ### C. Raw Data
    [Large outputs, full diffs, or data exports]
    
    Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.
  • Keep main report concise; details in appendix.
  • validate appendix is navigable with clear section headers.

Output Quality Checklist

Before finalizing:

  • All findings have evidence references.
  • Severity levels are justified.
  • Recommendations are specific and name the next step.
  • No orphaned sections or placeholder text.
  • Format renders correctly in target medium (GitHub, Confluence, etc.).

Exit Criteria

  • Todos completed with formatted deliverable.
  • Output follows selected template structure.
  • Stakeholders can act on findings without clarification.

Related skills

Provides review-workflow scaffolding for context, evidence, and output. Use at the start of any detailed review to ensure consistent, comparable findings

21 installs

Merges ephemeral report and analysis artifacts into permanent documentation

22 installs

Reviews pull requests with scope validation, requirements compliance, and line comments

21 installs

Evaluates API surface design, consistency, and exemplar alignment

22 installs

Enforces validation and evidence before claiming work complete. Use before declaring implementation done, creating a PR, or submitting deliverables for review

21 installs

Summarizes recent git changes for context recovery after session breaks

23 installs