Content
88%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 an exemplary multi-phase orchestration workflow: every phase has concrete inputs, exact prompts, approval gates, and failure handling, with validation and feedback loops covering the QA gate, rollback, and unverified-result cases. Its weaknesses are minor: a handful of editorial rationale passages that pad the token budget, and a monolithic single-file structure where the long output template could be externalized. Neither weakens the skill's practical executability.
Suggestions
Trim the rhetorical rationale passages (e.g. 'the worst possible audience for an unverified change', 'a patch without a rollback plan is irresponsible') to their operative one-line instructions.
Move the ~60-line patch-record template to an assets/ or references/ file and link to it, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview.
Quote the agent spawn prompts verbatim (as done for AskUserQuestion prompts) instead of describing their contents.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely efficient — tables, exact prompts, exact paths, and a ready-to-use template — but contains rationale/editorial passages that could be trimmed, e.g. 'This whole skill rests on there being a gold master that already passed a release gate' and 'the worst possible audience for an unverified change'. This fits anchor 4 (minor instances of over-explanation); it is not 3 because the padding is sporadic rather than a pattern, and not 5 because those passages do not earn their tokens. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only orchestration skill the guidance is fully concrete: copy-paste-ready refusal and confirmation messages, exact AskUserQuestion option lists, exact file paths, a complete patch-record markdown template, a bug-classification table, and explicit commands.test fallback handling ('record Tests: NOT RUN — commands.test unset'). This matches anchor 5; the only trivial gap is that agent spawn prompts are described rather than quoted verbatim, which keeps it above anchor 4's 'minor gaps'. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 1-7 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: premise verification against the gate record with stop conditions (FAIL/CONCERNS/NOT ASSESSED), user scope approval, rollback plan before any code, ask-before-apply fixes, and a QA verdict gate whose FAIL and NOT ASSESSED outcomes each have explicit recovery paths (defer to 1.1, obtain the result). This matches anchor 5; the destructive/batch cap does not apply because validation is present throughout. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the single file has clean phase headers and a correctly cited doc path (.claude/docs/directory-structure.md), fitting anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps). It is not 5 because at ~255 lines it exceeds the simple-skill exception and the ~60-line output template plus several rationale blocks could be split into assets/ or reference files; not 3 because nothing that clearly belongs in a separate file buries the workflow. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |