Content
48%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 presents a genuinely concrete orchestration spec — clear phases, explicit checkpoints, iron rules, and validation gates — but it is buried under pervasive internal versioning archaeology, thrice-repeated policy disclaimers, and content inlined from other repository files. Many referenced implementation files are missing from the shipped bundle, leaving the executable guidance incomplete as delivered.
Suggestions
Strip issue-tracker and changelog archaeology (#1030, #574 A1/B1, PR #294, version-slice references) from SKILL.md and keep it in references/changelog.md, cutting the body to what an executing agent needs.
Move the inlined routing core, sprint-contract details, model tiering, and the three near-duplicate advisory-attachment sections into reference files, leaving one-line pointers — this would also lift progressive_disclosure.
Fix or remove references to files absent from the bundle (agents/*.md, templates/*.md, examples/*.md, scripts/*.py, shared/*, docs/*), or ship them, so the concrete commands and template structures are actually executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~540-line body is noticeably to severely padded with internal repository archaeotype — issue numbers ('#1030', '#574 A1/B1', 'PR #294', '#134 Slices 3-5'), versioned changelog asides, a routing core explicitly 'repeated below, identical to shared/references/routing_core.md', and the advisory-attachment disclaimer ('No call that writes this round's decision, roadmap, or letter sees the report') repeated three times nearly verbatim. It avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, so it does not hit anchor 1, but the padding is pervasive rather than 'several sections', keeping it at 2. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | There is concrete guidance — a mode-routing map ("'Help me check the methodology' -> methodology-focus"), exact CLI invocations ('python3 scripts/check_acronyms.py --input <manuscript file> --lang <en|zh-TW>'), and typed checkpoint rules — but key executable details live in files absent from the bundle (agents/*.md, templates/*.md, scripts/*.py, shared/*), so much of the guidance cannot actually be executed as shipped. That is 'incomplete, missing key details' rather than the 'minor gaps' of anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The core flow is a clear 3-phase sequence with an explicit STOP checkpoint ('show the Reviewer Configuration Cards and wait for the user's reply before Phase 1') and hard validation gates ('after scripts/check_panel_synthesis.py exits 0', the checker-verified three-gate re-review contract). It falls short of anchor 5 because the dense overlay of sprint contracts, Mode A/B invocation rules, model tiering, and cross-model exceptions buries the sequence — the re-review mode is a single near-unreadable table cell. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Reference tables are well organized and one level deep (14 references with purpose and used-by columns, all present in the bundle), but roughly 200 lines of policy that belongs in reference files is inlined (routing core, sprint contract, model tiering, three separate attachment protocols), and many body paths point to files that do not exist in the bundle (agents/, templates/, examples/, scripts/, shared/, docs/). Structure is present and references are clearly signaled — better than anchor 2 — but inlined content and dead paths keep it below anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |