Content
80%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 compact, well-structured, and provides a copy-paste-ready output template plus concrete workflow steps. Its main weakness is workflow_clarity: the durable-write operation has a single thin validation checkpoint and no explicit failure/recovery branch, which the rubric caps at 3.
Suggestions
Add an explicit failure branch after the 'Verify APPROVED status' step (e.g., if not approved, halt and route back to /cs:boardroom) so the durable write has a real validation feedback loop.
Tighten the 'Why Preserved Dissent' section to one line or fold it into the Preserved Dissent field of the record template to reclaim a few tokens.
Consider noting what to do if the llm-wiki bridge is absent or the write fails, so the batch-write path is robust rather than implicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-sectioned with no padding about concepts Claude already knows; the 'Why Preserved Dissent' rationale is domain-specific and earns its place, though it is a touch of explanation that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly actionable for an instruction-only skill: exact output paths, a copy-paste-ready decision record template, concrete routing commands, and explicit audit rules cover the common cases fully. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step sequence is clear and includes an approval-validation checkpoint, but for a durable/batch write operation there is no error-recovery feedback loop or branch for when validation fails, which per the rubric cap holds this at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A compact (~100 line), well-sectioned skill with clearly signaled, one-level-deep cross-skill references and no nested bundle references; per the simple-skill note this organization merits 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |