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 a well-designed, lean router with an unusually explicit routing protocol and genuine error-recovery loops. However, its load-bearing references (manifest.yaml, static/core/tools.md, static/core/routing-and-ops.md) are missing from the provided bundle, which breaks both executability of step 1 and the navigation structure the disclosure strategy depends on.
Suggestions
Ship (or fix the paths to) `manifest.yaml` and the `static/core/` files (`tools.md`, `routing-and-ops.md`) — the routing protocol instructs the agent to always load them, so their absence dead-ends every task at step 1.
Inline the minimal content of the missing core layer (or embed the workflow→file mapping directly in SKILL.md) so the router remains executable even if the manifest is unavailable.
Trim the duplicated enumerations in step 2 (workflow list) and step 5 (reference list), since both restate what the manifest is supposed to declare.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The router is lean: no re-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, dense file-path listings, and efficient reuse guidance ("Reuse already loaded guidance on follow-ups; load more only when the task needs it"). Minor trimming is possible — the workflow list in step 2 and the reference enumeration in step 5 partially duplicate what the (referenced) manifest already declares — so it sits at anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete in form (exact paths like `references/workflows/wf4-citation-file-mgmt.md`, explicit ordering of core → fragment → shared modules, and script names), but the first and central instruction — "Read [manifest.yaml](manifest.yaml)" and the `always_load` files `static/core/tools.md` / `static/core/routing-and-ops.md` — points at files that do not exist in the bundle, so an agent dead-ends at step 1. That is a missing-key-details execution gap matching anchor 3 rather than the mostly-executable anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step routing protocol is clearly sequenced (manifest/core → detect workflow → load fragment → apply in priority order → on-demand references) and includes explicit error-recovery feedback loops: "Report specific tool failures and continue with remaining tools; broaden terms when there are no results; fall back to manual generation from MCP-fetched metadata if a script fails twice." This matches anchor 5's clear sequence with feedback loops, not anchor 4 which tolerates validation gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The design intent is good — one-level-deep workflow fragments, an on-demand reference table, and a "do not read every workflow" guard — but scored against the actual bundle, the declared navigation hub (manifest.yaml) and the entire `static/core/` layer it points to are absent, while the workflows, shared-module references, and scripts do exist. Broken central navigation is more than the "minor organization gaps" of anchor 4; it lands at anchor 3, where structure is present but navigation is unreliable. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |