Content
75%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 a well-structured, mostly lean workflow with concrete commands, sequenced steps, and an explicit validation gate plus confirmation prompt — appropriate for a drift-detection skill that mutates Plans.md. It is not a 5 primarily because some drift-detection checks are phrased as comparison descriptions rather than runnable commands, and a couple of sections (snapshot design notes, duplicated option tables) could be tightened.
Suggestions
Convert the Step 1.5 and Step 2 detection tables from descriptive comparisons ('コミット履歴 vs マーカー') into concrete shell snippets or jq/grep commands so each check is directly executable.
Tighten the duplicated option information: the Quick Reference table and the オプション table overlap; merge them or have the Quick Reference link to オプション.
Add a short validation/verification note in Step 4.5 (snapshot) and Step R4 (harness-mem write) confirming the write succeeded before proceeding.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely lean and assumes Claude's competence — it uses tables and short code blocks to convey checks and commands rather than explaining what git or Plans.md are — with only minor spots (e.g., the snapshot design-intent blockquote and repeated Quick Reference / オプション tables) that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, executable commands (cat Plans.md, git status, git log, grep, jq pipelines, mkdir snapshot dir) and concrete output templates, but several detection steps are described as table rows ('コミット履歴 vs マーカー') rather than runnable commands, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (Step 0 validation → Step 1 collection → Step 1.5 trace analysis → Step 2 drift → Step 3 update proposal → Step 4 summary → Step 5 next action → Step 6 retro) with a validation gate in Step 0 and a confirmation prompt in Step 3; minor validation gaps (e.g., no explicit feedback loop before writing the snapshot or recording to harness-mem) keep it just below the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections covering the whole workflow at one level with no nested references and no separate bundle files to navigate; the content is self-contained and easy to scan, with only minor organization gaps (e.g., the Quick Reference and オプション tables overlap). | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |