Content
88%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 tight, fully actionable protocol document: concrete JSON payloads, exact paths and enums, and a clearly sequenced workflow with explicit failure paths for assignment mismatch, missing room, and blockers. Its only weaknesses are mild redundancy in the submit/verify descriptions and a monolithic single-file layout that, at ~115 lines, sits just past the size where inline-only structure is ideal.
Suggestions
State the submit_task push-and-verify behavior once in 'Execution Flow' and drop the restatement in the 'Blocked' section, since the payload shown there already implies it.
Condense the Task Directory listing by merging the coordinator-created and Worker-owned path groups into a single annotated tree to remove overlap with the ownership prose.
Consider moving the Blocked and Progress protocol details into a short reference file, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview of the acknowledge-execute-submit flow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence — it documents only protocol facts Claude cannot know (directory ownership, 'taskflow' owns result.md and meta.json, identity-match requirements). It falls short of anchor 5 only through minor repetition: the 'taskflow' submit semantics are stated in 'Execution Flow' step 4 ('writes result.md, marks local task state submitted, pushes... and verifies') and restated in the 'Blocked' section ('submit_task automatically pushes and verifies'), and the directory listing mildly overlaps the ownership prose. Anchor 3 would require noticeable padding or explanations of known concepts, which are absent. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Every step is copy-paste executable for this protocol: exact JSON payloads with field names ('action': 'ack_task', 'payload': {'taskId': '{task-id}'}), exact paths ('shared/tasks/{task-id}/progress/YYYY-MM-DD.md'), exact status enums, and a literal completion message format ('@coordinator:domain TASK_COMPLETED: {task-id} - <short outcome>'). This matches the anchor for fully executable, ready-to-use commands covering the common cases, including the blocked case; anchor 4's 'minor gaps' does not apply since both happy and blocked paths are fully specified. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step sequence (acknowledge → read spec from response → execute → submit → notify) is clearly ordered with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: stop on identity mismatch ('If either action reports that the task is assigned to someone else, stop and report'), stop on missing 'meta.json.room_id' instead of guessing, and submit_task's built-in push-and-verify. The BLOCKED flow is a complete error-recovery path. This matches the anchor-5 pattern of explicit validation steps and error-recovery loops; anchor 4 would leave checkpoints merely 'mostly' present. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well-organized into 'Task Directory', 'Execution Flow', 'Blocked', and 'Progress' sections with no nested or buried references, and no bundle files exist to misplace content. However, the skill exceeds the under-50-line threshold under which a reference-free single file scores 5 — the directory-ownership rules and the Blocked/Progress sections are inline protocol detail that a leaner core plus one reference could serve — so this lands at anchor 4 ('good structure, most content appropriately placed, minor organization gaps') rather than the anchor-5 clear-overview-with-referenced-details pattern. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |