Content
78%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: lean instructions, exact agent specifications, a clear two-mode workflow with a complexity decision rule, and clean one-level-deep disclosure into four real reference files. The main deductions are partial duplication of the explorer prompt template in the body, a dangling cross-reference to an external "interrogate" skill, and implicit rather than explicit validation of the final output against the user's question.
Suggestions
Trim or collapse the explorer bullet list in Step 2a to a one-line summary, since references/explorer-prompt.md already contains the full exploration instructions the explorers receive.
Replace or remove the dangling "Same framework as the interrogate skill" reference (no such skill in this bundle) with a brief inline description of the lead-judgment framework.
Add a final checkpoint in Step 4 (e.g., verify the explanation addresses the parsed question from Step 1, and loop back to the explainer if a slice is missing) to make the workflow's validation explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the explorer bullet list ("Start broad: Glob for relevant directories...", "Follow the thread...", "Read the actual code, don't guess from file names") largely restates what references/explorer-prompt.md already instructs the explorer to do, so a few tokens could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable orchestration guidance throughout — exact `subagent_type: pstack:readonly-agent`, model defaults, named prompt-template files, a worked decomposition example for the rate-limiter question, and a defined output format. Minor gaps: "Same framework as the interrogate skill" references a skill not in this bundle, and "your configured how-explorer model" relies on external configuration without a pointer to where it is defined. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Both modes have clearly sequenced steps with an explicit complexity decision rule and a fallback ("You can always spawn explorers if the explainer hits a wall"), and the read-only nature means the destructive-operation validation cap doesn't apply. However, validation checkpoints are only implicit — there's no step verifying the final explanation actually answers the user's original question, and no guidance for recovering when explorers return unusably thin findings. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear orchestration overview and all four bundle files (references/explorer-prompt.md, explainer-prompt.md, critic-prompt.md, critique-rubric.md) are real, each referenced with an explicit signal of what it contains, exactly one level deep with easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |