Content
73%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 orchestration skill: the six-phase workflow is exemplary, with explicit report-validation feedback loops, launch-failure recovery, and a copy-paste decision-memo template. Its weaknesses are redundancy (read-only rules repeated across three sections) and version-pinned model names that will age the roster and inflate token cost.
Suggestions
State the read-only/no-commit constraint once (in the Brief section) and have the Practical notes refer to it instead of repeating it, trimming roughly 10 lines.
Move the model-roster details (specific versions, substitution ladder, harness-specific model IDs) into a references/models.md and replace them with a one-line default roster plus a pointer, so version churn happens outside the always-loaded SKILL.md.
Include one minimal example launch prompt or brief so step 3's 'launch with a minimal prompt' guidance is fully executable rather than compositional.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly non-obvious harness-specific guidance, but it could be tightened: the read-only constraint is stated three times ("explicitly tell them not to edit files", the brief's "constraints, especially read-only/no commits/no PRs", and "tell children not to modify files, commit, create branches, or open PRs" in Practical notes), and time-sensitive version numbers ("Opus 4.7", "GPT 5.5", "Kimi 2.6", "GLM 5.1", "claude-opus-4-7") will age the roster without an old-patterns section. Fits anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') better than anchor 4's minor-trimmings bar. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: launch mechanics ("launch them in separate `run_agents` calls because model selection is run-wide"), a 7-point structured report format, and a copy-paste-ready final answer template in a markdown code block. Falls short of anchor 5 only because no example launch prompt or brief is shown verbatim — the executor still has to compose them. Rubric's code-vs-instruction note applies: no code expected for a coordination skill, and the guidance is actionable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced phases with explicit feedback loops: "If a report is missing key evidence or makes an unsupported claim, send a focused follow-up question to that same child" (validate-report-fix loop), "If a long brief causes launch validation issues, launch with a minimal prompt and send the full brief... afterward" (launch error recovery), and a synthesis checklist ("lead with the recommendation... mention confidence and material unknowns"). Matches anchor 5's clear sequence, explicit validation, and error-recovery loops; the skill involves no destructive or batch operations, so no cap applies. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), so this scores the single-file organization: six well-labeled sections plus a template and practical notes, easy to navigate. Not a 5 because the under-50-line exception doesn't apply (130 lines) and some content — the ~15 lines of model-roster naming and substitution rules — reads like reference material that could live in a separate file. Anchor 4 ('good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps') fits. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |