Content
82%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, actionable review skill body with concrete commands and a clear sequenced workflow. It loses points only on placeholder gaps and the absence of explicit error-recovery feedback loops.
Suggestions
Resolve the '<plugin>' and '<changed-files>' placeholders into concrete, copy-pasteable invocations (or document how they are substituted) to push actionability to 5.
Add an explicit validation/feedback step after running the tools (e.g., 'If complexity_checker exits non-zero or returns no findings, note it in the report and adjust manual review depth') to add an error-recovery loop.
Signal the dependency on the karpathy-coder scripts more explicitly — name the referenced scripts and their location up front so the cross-skill reference is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient: states the role, gives exact commands, per-principle checks, and a report template without explaining concepts Claude already knows. Every section earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands (git diff, complexity_checker, diff_surgeon) and a full report template, but relies on placeholders like '<plugin>' and '<changed-files>' that leave minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 4-step sequence (diff, tools, manual review, report) with a fallback checkpoint in step 1, but lacks explicit error-recovery feedback loops between tool runs and the report. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into Role/Workflow/Rules sections with no nested references, but the ~80-line body references plugin scripts via an implicit '<plugin>' placeholder rather than clearly signaled one-level-deep references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |