Content
70%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 exceptionally actionable and well-gated orchestration pipeline with literal commands, paths, output strings, and strong error-recovery feedback loops. Its weaknesses are token efficiency — the same rules (write exception, NOT ASSESSED reporting) are restated multiple times with lengthy defensive rationale — and inlining of meta-commentary that belongs in a separate reference file.
Suggestions
State the bounded write-exception once (in the File Write Protocol section) and reference it from the delegation section and return-contract paragraph instead of restating it three times.
Move the meta-rationale essays ('Why this does not violate the Collaboration Protocol', the team-size collapse explanation, the 'skipped-check reporting' philosophy) into a reference document and keep one-line pointers inline.
Define the accessibility NOT ASSESSED wording once at Phase 1a and have Phase 4 and the Output section reference it rather than repeat the full string and its justification.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is noticeably verbose with several padded sections: the bounded write-exception is explained three times (return-contract paragraph, the 'Why this does not violate the Collaboration Protocol' blockquote, and the File Write Protocol section), the accessibility NOT ASSESSED rule is fully restated at Phase 1a, Phase 4, and Output, and long defensive essays ('The collapse is correct', 'Do not "fix" this by asking per subagent') justify rules rather than instruct. Not 1: it never explains concepts Claude already knows and the bulk is genuine operational instruction; not 3: the padding is several sections, not occasional over-explanation. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable for an instruction-only orchestrator skill: literal subagent_type values, a table mapping each phase/agent to its exact output path, verbatim strings to emit (the active-set announcement, 'Accessibility: NOT ASSESSED — ...', 'Engine validation: NOT ASSESSED — ...'), explicit AskUserQuestion option sets, a runnable prefill bash command, and explicit rules for substituting [path]/[feature-name] placeholders. Concrete guidance covers the common cases end to end. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear Phase 0→5 sequence with explicit validation gates ('Do not proceed to Phase 2 until the verdict is APPROVED'), feedback loops (NEEDS REVISION → revise the same spec → re-run review; NOT ASSESSED → produce the missing input first; Error Recovery Protocol with artifact-on-disk verification), and a checklist-style final report with COMPLETE/BLOCKED verdicts naming any skipped checks. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section and phase structure is real and project-doc references (.claude/docs/automation-modes.md, error-recovery-protocol.md, config-resolution.md) are one level deep and clearly signaled, but no bundle files exist and substantial meta-rationale that belongs in a separate reference (the Collaboration Protocol defense, the team-size collapse essay, the repeated exception exposition) is inlined. Not 4 because content that should be separate is inline; not 2 because structure is present and references are not buried. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |