Content
63%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 delivers a well-sequenced, actionable deliberation workflow with concrete templates, reviewer pairings, and a realistic example session. Its weaknesses are token redundancy from repeated /cw-panel comparisons, a very long inline example that could be offloaded to a reference file, and slightly loose guidance on the reviewer-spawning mechanism.
Suggestions
Consolidate the /cw-panel comparison into one section and remove the duplicated contrast from the When-to-Use table, Choose-when lists, and Relationship section to tighten conciseness.
Move the ~140-line example session into a separate EXAMPLES.md reference and link to it from the body, improving progressive disclosure and token efficiency.
Tighten the reviewer-spawning step with concrete, runtime-specific commands (e.g. the actual agent/worker invocation) so the actionability reaches copy-paste readiness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and does not lecture on concepts Claude already knows, but the /cw-panel comparison recurs in four places (the When-to-Use table, the Choose-when lists, the Relationship section, and the description) and the ~140-line example session inflates the token budget. Not a 4 because the redundancy and example length could be meaningfully trimmed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: a filled-in challenge prompt template, a specific reviewer-pairing table with named tensions, explicit resolution states (Concede/Hold/Propose; Resolved/Stalemate/Proposal on table), a 4-round cap, and a full example output. Not a 5 because the exact spawn mechanism is described loosely ('run reviewers in parallel when the active platform supports isolated workers') rather than as copy-paste-ready steps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-round sequence plus a 7-step practical flow, with an error-handling section covering spawn failures, no tensions, non-response, and circular debate, plus round-cap and stalemate checkpoints. Not a 5 because the checkpoints are error-recovery oriented rather than explicit validate-then-proceed gates, and tension identification is described but not checklist-driven. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single monolithic SKILL.md with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ absent) and good section headers, but a ~140-line inline example session and the panel-pairing table are content that could live in a separate reference file. Not a 4 because content that should be split out is inlined, and the one referenced path (../../references/context-contract.md) is external to the bundle. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |