Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a well-sequenced, highly actionable rebuttal workflow with strong validation checkpoints, but it is verbose due to repeated safety rules and does not use progressive disclosure to offload detail into reference files.
Suggestions
Consolidate the no-fabrication / no-overpromise / coverage rules into the single Safety Model section and reference it from Phase 4, Phase 5, and Key Rules instead of restating them.
Extract the Codex MCP stress-test prompt template, the ISSUE_BOARD field schema, and the rebuttal heuristics into separate reference files (e.g. references/MCP_PROMPT.md, references/ISSUE_SCHEMA.md) referenced one level deep.
Tighten the Scope and Key Rules sections to remove phrasing that duplicates the Safety Model gates.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly dense and actionable, but the no-fabrication / no-overpromise / full-coverage rules are restated across Scope, the Safety Model, Phase 4 hard rules, Phase 5 lints, and the Key Rules section, adding redundancy that could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete file names (ISSUE_BOARD.md, STRATEGY_PLAN.md), enumerated field schemas, a copy-paste Codex MCP prompt block, character-budget percentages, and a per-issue reply pattern give fully executable, specific guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Eight numbered phases are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (Phase 5 lints, Phase 6 stress test, "If hard safety blocker → revise before finalizing") and feedback loops (draft → lint → revise). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the ~250-line body is a monolithic SKILL.md; content that could be split out (the MCP prompt template, issue-board schema, rebuttal heuristics) is inline rather than one-level-deep references. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |