Content
71%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 body is highly actionable, with concrete commands, paths, templates, and well-designed validation hard stops, and the workflow is clearly sequenced apart from a duplicate Phase 7 numbering. The main weaknesses are the repetitively justified provenance-check section and the total absence of progressive disclosure, with everything including full templates inlined in one file.
Suggestions
Fix the numbering collision: "Phase 7: Offer File Write" and "Phase 7: Next Steps" are both labeled Phase 7 — renumber the second to Phase 8.
Tighten the provenance check to state the rule once (classify commits, stop on zero Game commits) and drop the repeated justifications and /patch-notes parity meta-commentary, which roughly halve that section without losing the instruction.
Move the two full changelog templates into references/ files (e.g. references/internal-template.md and references/player-template.md) so the body stays an overview and the ~80 lines of templates load only when generating output.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The phase templates and commands are efficient, but the provenance-check section restates the same rule roughly four times ("Filter per commit...", "Why this is a hard stop, not a warning", "Do not treat the preamble's existence as evidence") plus meta-commentary about /patch-notes parity. This matches "mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened" rather than the noticeably-verbose anchor 2, since only one section is padded. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance throughout: exact git commands (`git log --oneline [last-tag]..HEAD`, `git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree`), exact source paths (production/sprints/, design/gdd/), a concrete Grep pattern (`^#` with offset/limit reading), copy-paste-ready markdown templates for both changelogs, and verbatim user-facing messages. Per the scoring notes, an instruction-only skill with this level of concrete guidance earns the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The phase sequence is clear with strong validation checkpoints (BLOCKED hard stops with exact messages, provenance classification, repo verification, and an ask-before-write A/B/C gate for a destructive overwrite). It falls short of anchor 5 because two different sections are both numbered "Phase 7" ("Offer File Write" and "Next Steps"), and the provenance check that runs first forward-references Phase 1, creating minor sequencing confusion. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), so the entire ~250-line body is a single file with clear section headers but zero progressive disclosure structure. The two full changelog templates (~40 lines each) are inline content that could live in separate reference files, matching the anchor for content that should be separate being inline. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |