Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a reasonable overview of a complex multi-agent planning workflow with good structural organization and clear references to supporting files. Its main weaknesses are redundancy (session management and intake questions stated twice) and insufficient actionability in the core workflow steps — the actual mechanics of prompt building, anonymization, and judging lack concrete executable examples. The workflow would benefit from explicit validation checkpoints between critical steps.
Suggestions
Remove duplicate content: consolidate the session management rule and intake question guidance to appear only once, reducing token waste.
Add concrete, executable examples for key workflow steps — especially prompt template generation, anonymization, and judge invocation — rather than relying entirely on references.
Add explicit validation checkpoints between workflow steps (e.g., 'Verify all planner outputs exist and are valid Markdown before proceeding to anonymization').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient but has some redundancy — the 30-minute session management rule is stated twice (in Workflow step 7 and in Constraints), and the intake question guidance is repeated across Quick Start and Workflow. Some explanatory notes could be tightened, but overall it doesn't over-explain concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete CLI commands (`python3 scripts/llm_council.py run --spec /path/to/spec.json`) and a full JSON config example, which is good. However, the workflow steps are more procedural descriptions than fully executable guidance — there's no concrete code for building planner prompts, collecting outputs, anonymizing, or running the judge. Key operational details are deferred to reference files without inline examples. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow provides a clear sequence, and step 4 includes a retry mechanism with failure handling. However, validation checkpoints are weak — there's no explicit 'verify X before proceeding to Y' pattern beyond step 4's Markdown structure check. The session management instruction in step 7 is important but mixes operational concerns with workflow steps, reducing clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill has a clean structure with Quick Start, Workflow, Agent Configuration, References, and Constraints sections. References are clearly signaled and one level deep (architecture.md, prompts.md, templates/*.md, cli-notes.md). Content is appropriately split between the overview and reference files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |