Content
77%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 well-structured, actionable review workflow with clear sequencing, validation checkpoints, and appropriate progressive disclosure. The main defect is a verbatim-duplicated 'Internal parameters' subsection that wastes tokens and should be removed.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicate '### Internal parameters' section (the second copy, lines 75-87) — it is identical to the first and wastes context tokens.
Add a short example of the expected review-report format (e.g., one labeled finding entry) so the output shape is unambiguous.
Tighten the repeated documentation URLs (they appear in both Phase 2 and references/review-checklist.md); reference the checklist once instead of restating the entry points.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with lean lists and phases, but the '### Internal parameters' section is duplicated verbatim (lines 61-87 and 75-87), which is pure token waste that should be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance — specific file paths (mcp/src/tools/*), specific documentation URLs, enumerated finding labels, and explicit escalation rules; minor gaps in that no example report format is given. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced four-phase workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (documentation-first verification in Phase 2, cross-check in Phase 3, test-required escalation in Phase 4) plus a minimum self-check checklist and feedback loop ('if docs do not clearly support... stop short of guessing'). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md is a concise overview pointing to a single one-level-deep reference (references/review-checklist.md) that is clearly signaled in both the workflow and the routing table, and the referenced file exists and is well-organized. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |