Content
81%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.
A strong, well-structured workflow skill with explicit safety gates, a clear phase sequence, and concrete schemas and prompts. Its main weaknesses are minor redundancy in the closing Key Rules and Phase 5 lints that are named but not given as executable commands.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'Key Rules' section: remove rules already stated in the Safety Model and Phase 4 Hard rules (Never fabricate / Never overpromise / Full coverage) to eliminate redundancy and trim tokens.
Make Phase 5 validation executable: point each lint at a concrete command or a bundled script (e.g., `python rebuttal/scripts/lint.py REBUTTAL_DRAFT_v1.md ISSUE_BOARD.md`) so the six checks are copy-paste ready rather than abstract descriptions.
Move the long issue-type taxonomy and 'Heuristics from 5 successful rebuttals' into a one-level-deep reference file (e.g., references/REBUTTAL_HEURISTICS.md) so SKILL.md reads as a concise overview pointing to detail.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and largely earns its tokens — phases, safety gates, taxonomy, and heuristics are all load-bearing — but the trailing 'Key Rules' section restates several rules already in the Safety Model and Phase 4 ('Never fabricate', 'Never overpromise', 'Full coverage'), which is minor redundancy that could be trimmed; not a 3 because the bulk is efficient rather than padded. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout — named output files, the ISSUE_BOARD schema with exact fields, character-budget percentages, a copy-paste Codex MCP block, and a per-issue reply pattern — but Phase 5's six lints are described as abstract checks ('Coverage — every issue maps to draft anchor') rather than executable commands or a lint script, leaving a minor gap; not a 5 because validation is not fully copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 0–8 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (Phase 5 lists six lints, Phase 6 stress-test yields a 'safe to submit / needs revision' verdict with a revise-before-finalize feedback loop) and a per-follow-up re-lint loop; rebuttal drafting is not a destructive/batch operation, so the workflow-clarity cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections (Scope, Constants, Safety Model, Workflow, Key Rules) with no nested references and structurally no missing external files, but at ~250 lines the simple-skill 'under 50 lines' 5-anchor does not apply and the issue taxonomy / rebuttal heuristics could be split into a reference file; not a 5 because the single monolithic file is longer than an overview ideally is. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |