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 a strong example of skill writing: fully concrete guidance with explicit checkpoints, fallback behavior for missing inputs, and permission gating before the write. Its only weaknesses are minor — a marginally trimmable template section and no bundle split for the large report template.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes competence (e.g. "Resolved above — use as-is; `--review` overrides `review_mode` for this run"), but the ~60-line inlined template and a few explanatory asides (e.g. "A director gate handed silence about pillars will invent them") could be marginally trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable throughout: a verbatim report template, exact user-facing phrases ("Verdict: **COMPLETE** — blank template output; nothing saved"), exact routing commands (/propagate-design-change, /balance-check, /bug-report), and an exact save path pattern. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The phased sequence (1, 2A/2B, 3, 3b, 4, 5) is explicit with validation checkpoints: mode fallback via AskUserQuestion, a review-mode gate before spawning the director, conditional handling for missing game-concept.md, and a permission ask before any write. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear phase headers and clearly signaled external references (.claude/docs/director-gates.md, automation-modes.md) with a deliberate one-level rule ("the spawned agent reads its own gate file; do not read it in the parent session"), but the full report template is inlined rather than split into a bundle file — a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |