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.
A well-structured, actionable read-only review workflow with clear sequencing and concrete commands. It is held back from top marks mainly by repeated read-only disclaimers and the absence of a reusable sub-agent prompt template or any reference-file split.
Suggestions
State the read-only constraint once in Step 2 and reference it from each sub-agent section instead of repeating the full disclaimer four times.
Include a short copy-paste sub-agent prompt template showing the exact scope, intent packet, and required finding shape to hand to each reviewer.
Consider moving the four per-role checklists into a references/ file (e.g. REVIEWER_ROLES.md) to shorten SKILL.md and improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The workflow is lean and assumes Claude's competence, but the read-only disclaimer ('This sub-agent is read-only. It must not edit files, apply patches...') is repeated verbatim four times across sub-agents after already being stated in Step 2. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete git diff commands, a precise required finding shape (file/line, issue, why it matters, follow-up, confidence), and an explicit output ordering; the minor gap is that no copy-paste sub-agent prompt template is provided. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced five-step process with an explicit 'stop if no clear scope' checkpoint and per-reviewer checklists; it lacks a formal validate→retry feedback loop, though none is required for a read-only (non-destructive) skill. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained file with well-organized Step 1–5 sections and per-role subsections, no nested references; at ~160 lines with no content split into reference files it falls just short of the well-signaled multi-file ideal. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |