Content
82%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 executable, well-sequenced read/report workflow with concrete gh and jq commands and a verification checklist guarding its only risky recommendation. It is concise and well-structured, with minor room to tighten the supersession-grammar prose and formalize command error handling.
Suggestions
Tighten the Step 4 supersession-grammar explanation: the bracket-expression definitions are useful but the prose around them could be shortened to lift conciseness toward a 5.
Add a brief error-recovery note for the gh/jq commands (e.g., handle empty results or auth-scope failures) to give the workflow an explicit feedback loop.
Consider moving the Step 5 presentation-table templates into a short reference so the main body reads as procedure with output examples deferred.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of what a PR or GitHub is), but the Step 4 supersession-grammar prose and presentation templates add some bulk that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready, fully executable `gh project item-list`, `gh pr view --json`, and `parse-supersession.sh` commands with complete jq filters covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-5 form a clear sequence with an explicit verification checklist before recommending closure (Step 4, lines 92-99) and an early stop checkpoint; minor gaps remain in error-recovery handling for the gh commands themselves. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-organized into prerequisites, sequenced steps, presentation, and notes, with policy/comparator detail deferred to clearly signaled one-level-deep sibling-skill references; no local bundle exists, and some inline template content could be further separated. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |