Content
53%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 compact, well-organized skeleton of the pipeline with a sensible recovery loop, but it stays entirely at the structural level: it names stages, template fields, and rules without a single concrete example, command, or output format for Claude to execute against. Adding one worked example (a decomposed unit with its acceptance tests and scorecard) would do the most to lift actionability and workflow validation.
Suggestions
Include one worked example of a decomposed unit — a filled Unit Spec (id, depends_on, scope, acceptance_tests, risk_level, rollback_plan) drawn from a small sample RFC.
Make validation checkpoints explicit gates, e.g. 'a unit is merge-ready only when all acceptance tests pass and review reports no blocking findings', rather than implied by the 'Unit validation' stage name.
Show the format of the outputs (unit scorecard, RFC execution log entries) so agents produce consistent, mergeable artifacts; or move these templates into clearly signaled reference files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — terse bullet lists and numbered stages with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows ('Never merge a unit with unresolved dependency failures'). It falls short of the every-token-earns-its-place anchor at 5 because the 'Inspired by humanplane style RFC decomposition patterns' attribution line and the generic Outputs list add little actionable value. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The content is structural but not executable: the Unit Spec Template lists field names ('id', 'depends_on', 'acceptance_tests') with no example unit spec, no commands, no sample DAG, and no scorecard or log format. This matches the score-2 anchor of high-level hints missing the specific steps to execute, rather than 3, because there is no partially-executable guidance at all. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sequences are clearly listed ('1. RFC intake ... 7. Final system verification'; the six-step quality pipeline) and a recovery loop exists, but validation checkpoints are implicit ('Unit validation', 'Re-run integration tests after each queued merge') rather than explicit gates with pass criteria. This matches the steps-listed-but-validation-gaps anchor at 3; it is not 4 because checkpoints lack explicit definitions. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the body is well-organized into clearly headed sections with nothing inlined that belongs in a separate file. It does not reach 5 because this is a complex orchestration skill where example templates (a filled unit spec, a sample scorecard, a dependency-graph format) would plausibly warrant clearly signaled reference files, and none are indicated. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |