Content
92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is highly actionable and well-sequenced with strong validation and error-recovery, and it stays lean by assuming Claude's competence. The only weakness is mild verbosity in a few inline explanatory comments that could be tightened.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, assumes Claude's git competence, and avoids explaining basic concepts; it is not score 5 because several lengthy inline comments (e.g. the `[ -d ]` rationale and the spawn_task aside) over-explain edge cases that could be trimmed, and not score 3 because the prose overall is efficient and earns most of its tokens. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready bash with concrete git worktree commands, a literal ticket regex `[A-Z]+-[0-9]+`, an exact terminal-title escape sequence, a concrete mark_chapter call, and explicit handoff arguments (`--phase plan --next-phase lock-tests`) with a recovery fallback; this fully matches the executable, common-case-covered anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (Step 0 worktree, Before first-action, After plan-saved) with explicit validation (the branch check that exits with 'WORKTREE RECOVERY FAILED') and a feedback/recovery loop (try `worktree add`, else reuse the existing checkout); this matches the explicit-validation-with-feedback-loops anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | It is a self-contained, well-sectioned single-purpose skill with clear headers and no nested or buried references; per the simple-skill note, well-organized sections with no need for external references score 5, and there are no bundle files to misreference. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |