Content
63%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-structured, mostly actionable instruction set with concrete commands and a clear review-triage workflow, dragged down by duplicated guidance, a filler closing section, and a template reference that points to a file absent from the bundle with two inconsistent paths. Fixing the template reference and deduplicating the push-back/workflow sections would lift it substantially.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced template (e.g. references/code-reviewer.md) in the bundle and use one consistent path for it in both mentions.
Deduplicate: merge the "Red Flags" push-back guidance with step 3, fold "Integration with Workflows" into "When to Request Review", and delete the vacuous "When to Use" section.
Add a feedback loop: after fixing Critical/Important issues, state whether to re-dispatch the reviewer on the new HEAD_SHA before proceeding.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The bulk of the body is lean — tight bullet lists and exact bash commands with no basic-concept explanations. However, there is real redundancy: the push-back guidance appears twice (step 3 "Push back if reviewer is wrong" and the "Red Flags" section), "Integration with Workflows" largely restates "When to Request Review", and the closing "When to Use" line ("applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview") is pure filler. This matches anchor 3 (mostly efficient, could be tightened) rather than anchor 2, since no section extensively explains known concepts. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands (BASE_SHA/HEAD_SHA via git rev-parse), a named tool type, an enumerated placeholder list, a worked example with real SHAs, and severity-based triage rules make the guidance mostly copy-paste ready. The gap keeping it below 5: the actual dispatch prompt is delegated to a template file ("fill template at `code-reviewer.md`") that is not present in this skill's bundle, so the core artifact cannot be executed as written. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The three-step sequence (get SHAs → dispatch reviewer with filled template → triage feedback by severity) is clearly ordered with explicit checkpoints ("Fix Critical issues immediately", "Fix Important issues before proceeding") and a push-back protocol. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no re-review loop after fixes are applied — the workflow ends at "fix issues" without verifying the fixes or requesting a follow-up review. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned and correctly pushes the dispatch template out to a separate file, but that reference is broken in the actual bundle: no references/ or scripts/ directories exist, and the file is cited inconsistently twice ("`code-reviewer.md`" and "requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md"). References present but not resolvable/consistent matches anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's "references mostly clear". | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |