Content
62%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 delivers an unusually rigorous, well-sequenced workflow with explicit gates, scoring formulas, and concrete OMX commands, but it is severely bloated: the same rules are restated across Execution_Policy, Steps, Tool_Usage, and the checklist, and hundreds of lines of peripheral material (autoresearch, handoff contracts, payload schemas) are inlined instead of split into reference files.
Suggestions
Split peripheral material into one-level-deep reference files (e.g., references/autoresearch.md, references/handoff-contracts.md, references/omx-question-payloads.md), keeping only the core interview loop and a summary table of handoff options in SKILL.md.
Deduplicate rules stated in multiple sections: state each rule once (the oversized-context gate, the answers[] contract, the intent-first stage priority, and the state-writer authority each appear 3-5 times across Execution_Policy, Steps, Tool_Usage, and the Final Checklist).
Replace repeated prose reinforcement of non-goals/decision-boundary gates with a single compact gate table, and trim the `omx question` payload guidance to the two canonical examples plus a one-line answer-shape note.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~570-line body repeats the same rules in multiple sections: the oversized-context summary gate appears in Execution_Policy, Phase 0, Phase 2a, Tool_Usage, and the Final Checklist; the `answers[]` vs legacy `answer` contract is restated three times; intent-first/non-goals/decision-boundary guidance recurs throughout. It is not a 1 because it does not explain concepts Claude already knows (no padding about what Socratic method or ambiguity means), but the redundancy is clearly noticeable verbosity. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly executable: concrete commands (`omx state write --input '<json>' --json`, `OMX_QUESTION_RETURN_PANE=$TMUX_PANE omx question ...`), canonical JSON payload examples, exact artifact paths, and a copy-paste-ready config TOML block. It is not a 5 because several payloads remain placeholder-shaped (e.g., `<slug>`, `<uuid>`, the stride contract is shown only as a filled example without an empty template) and some judgment-heavy steps ("challenge core assumptions") lack worked examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-phase workflow (Phase 0 preflight through Phase 5 execution bridge) is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: per-round ambiguity scoring with weighted formulas, readiness gates (Non-goals, Decision Boundaries), a pressure-pass requirement, a practical closure audit, escalation/stop conditions, blocked-state persistence, and a final checklist. It is not a 4 because validation and error-recovery feedback loops are explicit and repeated at every stage boundary rather than having minor gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The file is a monolithic ~570-line document with no bundle files at all: the autoresearch specialization, the five execution handoff contracts, the `omx question` payload schema, and the config reference are all inlined when they clearly belong in separate reference files. It is above a 2 because the body is well-sectioned with clear XML-style section tags and headers making it navigable, but it is below 4 because nothing is offloaded and a large fraction of the content is peripheral to the core interview loop. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |