Content
77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A detailed, highly actionable workflow skill with clear sequencing and strong validation/feedback loops. Its main weaknesses are token-efficiency (redundancy between Error Handling and the workflow steps) and limited progressive disclosure, where heavy spawn-prompt specifications remain inline rather than being factored into reference files.
Suggestions
Remove the redundancy between the Error Handling section and the workflow steps: convert it to a short cross-reference or a compact table of failure mode -> recovery action, since Step 1, Step 2, and Step 5 already cover most of these cases.
Extract the detailed teammate spawn-prompt specifications (executor, reviewer, architect role blocks) into a reference file such as references/teammate-prompts.md, leaving SKILL.md as a concise overview that points to it — this moves progressive_disclosure toward a 3.
Tighten the Cost Considerations section so it does not restate the 'Use this when' guidance already present in the description; keep only the concrete token-multiplier figures and cost-mitigation tips.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient operational guidance with no padded explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the Error Handling section restates workflow steps (e.g., Agent Teams not enabled, project directory missing) and Cost Considerations overlaps the 'Use this when' guidance. This fits the 2-anchor (mostly efficient but could be tightened) rather than the 3-anchor (every token earns its place). | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable guidance: 'echo $CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS', concrete JSON/bash snippets, precise test targeting ('pytest tests/test_specific.py::TestClass', 'jest --testPathPattern=specific.test.ts'), and named tool calls (TaskList, TaskUpdate, TaskCreate, AskUserQuestion) with parameters. Matches the 3-anchor (copy-paste ready, specific examples), not the 2-anchor (pseudocode/missing details). | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 6-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (availability check in Step 1, project structure verification in Step 2, reviewer quality gates) and feedback loops for error recovery ('needs-fixes -> executor fixes -> re-review; if fix cycle exceeds 2 iterations, lead intervenes and escalates'). This matches the 3-anchor; validation is present for the batch/team operation so it is not capped at 2. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized and the single external reference is cleanly signaled and one level deep ('Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/.../references/pattern-refresh.md and follow the pattern refresh procedure'). However, ~35 lines of detailed teammate spawn-prompt and role specifications are inline rather than split into reference files, fitting the 2-anchor (content that should be separate is inline) rather than the 3-anchor (concise overview pointing to detail files). | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |