Content
72%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 commendably lean and well-sectioned for a small single-file skill, and it names concrete callbacks and function calls. Its weakness is incomplete executable guidance and an implicit workflow: the Grill interview's answers are never connected to loop creation, and the execute/verify attempt cycle is only hinted at.
Suggestions
Show how the Grill interview answers map to loop parameters and add the concrete step that starts the loop after the interview (e.g., a short example invocation with the gathered fields).
Make the per-attempt sequence explicit: execute agent runs → verify agent checks → retry or escalate, so the interview-to-monitor handoff is a stated step rather than an implication.
Define or drop the unexplained jargon in Notes ("autoresearch pattern", "BackgroundJobBoard signals are baked into the runtime") — as written these notes assume context the skill never provides.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~25-line body contains zero padding: terse interview questions ("What are you trying to accomplish?"), callback signatures, and two compact notes ("Do not auto-resolve"), with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. This matches "lean and efficient; every token earns its place"; it is not 4 because there is nothing that could be trimmed. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete API surface is named ("onLoopComplete(loopID, success)", "resolveManualReview(loopID, passed, reason)", "cancel(loopID)") with literal interview questions, but key execution details are missing — nothing shows how the interview answers become loop parameters or how a loop is actually started. This fits "some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details" rather than 4, because the gaps (no entry point, no parameter mapping) exceed minor ones. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Grill interview is a clear numbered sequence and callback handling is ordered (report outcome → escalate/manual review → cancel), but the interview-to-loop handoff is implicit: there is no step for launching the loop and no per-attempt execute/verify sequence, and validation checkpoints are implied rather than explicit. This matches "steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit" — not 2 because a genuine rough sequence with defined responses exists, not 4 because the interview→monitor connection is a real gap. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is an under-50-line, single-purpose skill with no need for external references (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle exists, and the body cites none). Content is split into three well-labeled sections (Grill, Loop Monitor, Notes) with no inline bulk that belongs in separate files, which per the simple-skill scoring note earns a 5 for well-organized sections. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |