Content
78%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 token-efficient checklist: lean, well-sectioned, with a clear merge gate and decision feedback loop. Its main weakness is actionability — the steps name the right activities but stop short of executable specifics like test commands, diff-checking tools, or hygiene criteria.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body is lean with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line directs behavior. Matches the anchor for assuming Claude's competence with every token earning its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps like "Run relevant tests locally" and "Validate API/contracts and migration safety" direct concrete activities but include no commands, tools, or pass/fail criteria — matching the anchor for concrete-but-incomplete guidance with missing key details. Not a 2 because each protocol step does direct a specific review action rather than offering only high-level hints. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A numbered five-step sequence is followed by an explicit merge-gate checklist with a feedback path ("Otherwise request changes with actionable items"), giving clear sequencing with most checkpoints present. Not a 5 because there is no explicit handling of mid-protocol failures (e.g., what to do when tests fail during step 2) and "risk is understood" lacks a stated assessment method. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, needs no external references, and is cleanly sectioned (When to Use / Review Protocol / Merge Gate) — the simple-skill case where well-organized sections alone warrant full credit. No bundle files exist, so nothing is misfiled or buried. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |