Content
70%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 highly actionable with excellent per-mode workflow sequencing, validation gates, and feedback loops — a model of executable instruction for a complex orchestration skill. Its main weaknesses are severe redundancy (the sequencing and state-lifecycle rules are each repeated 4-5 times, roughly doubling token cost) and a monolithic single-file structure with no progressive disclosure layer for the RALPLAN-DR, /goal, and advanced material.
Suggestions
State the sequential-review rule and the ralplan state lifecycle once each (e.g., in Execution_Policy or a single Tool_Usage bullet) and reference it from the steps instead of repeating full sentences five times — this alone would cut substantial tokens without losing any instruction.
Move the RALPLAN-DR summary structure, /goal workflow comparison policies, and Design Option Presentation / Question Classification material into a references/ file (e.g., references/ralplan-dr.md and references/goal-workflow.md) with clear one-level-deep pointers from the body.
Consolidate the Good/Bad examples down to the two most instructive pairs; the option-presentation and batching examples restate rules already specified verbatim in Execution_Policy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The sequential-review rule ('never parallel', 'Architect output MUST NOT be passed to Critic') is stated at least five times across steps 3, 4, the blockquote, step 5a, and the Tool_Usage CRITICAL bullet, and the ralplan state-lifecycle rules are repeated across Steps, Tool_Usage, Escalation, and the Final_Checklist. This matches 'Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections'; the content itself is skill-specific (not concepts Claude already knows), which keeps it above 1. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: exact state_write/state_clear calls with arguments, concrete Task(subagent_type=...) and Skill(...) invocations, real file paths (.omc/plans/, .omc/drafts/), quantitative thresholds (80%+ file/line citations, 90%+ testable criteria, max 5 iterations), and copy-ready option labels for the approval UI. Specific examples cover the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Each of the four modes has an explicit numbered sequence with validation checkpoints: a re-review feedback loop (Critic rejects -> revise -> re-review), approval gates via structured AskUserQuestion, iteration caps with defined fallback behavior, state lifecycle rules for every exit path, and a final checklist. This matches the anchor with explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The file is a single ~250-line monolith with no bundle files at all: RALPLAN-DR deliberation structure, the /goal workflow comparison policies, the deprecation notice, and the examples all live inline where reference files would serve better. Section organization (XML-tagged sections, tables) is decent, which lifts it above anchor 2 ('content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined' with minimal structure), but there is no reference layer to signal — matching 'Some structure but could be better organized... content that should be separate is inline'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |