Content
68%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 lean, well-organized command document that clearly states what runs and when to use it, but it stops short of executable detail — no script invocation commands and no validation or synthesis steps for producing the final report.
Suggestions
Show the actual commands for each step (e.g., how to invoke complexity_checker.py on the changed files and with what arguments) instead of only naming script paths.
Add a final step describing how to combine the three checks into the structured report, and what to do if a script errors or a check is inconclusive.
Deduplicate the script listing — fold assumption_linter.py and goal_verifier.py into 'What it runs' (or explain their role) and drop the redundant 'Scripts' section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no explanations of what complexity or diff noise are, and short functional sections ('Usage', 'What it runs', 'Output', 'When to run') where every line carries information. It matches anchor 5 rather than 4 — there is no over-explanation to trim, only a small path duplication that serves a distinct inventory purpose. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete elements exist (exact script paths, the 'karpathy-reviewer' agent, numbered steps), but nothing is shown as executable — the scripts are never given invocation syntax or arguments, and how to determine 'all changed files' or dispatch the agent is left to inference. This matches anchor 3 ('missing key details') rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | 'What it runs' numbers the three checks so the sequence is present, but there are no checkpoints: nothing on what to do if a script fails, and no step for synthesizing the three results into the promised 'structured report'. This is a multi-step skill, so the simple-skill exception does not apply, and it fits anchor 3 (sequence present, checkpoints missing). | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and references (scripts, sub-agent, skill reference) are one level deep and clearly signaled in dedicated sections. Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4: the four script paths are listed twice, two scripts (assumption_linter.py, goal_verifier.py) appear only in a bare list with no context, and the references use repo-root paths rather than a verifiable skill bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist here). | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |