Content
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured workflow skill that clearly sequences the developer inner loop through four distinct phases with good validation checkpoints and scope management guidance. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete executable examples (no actual commands, templates, or code snippets) and some redundancy between the main workflow, common patterns, and failure modes sections. The progressive disclosure is reasonable with clear references to supporting files, though the main document carries substantial inline content.
Suggestions
Add concrete executable examples: a sample lint/test command sequence for self-review, a filled-in PR description template, and an example review response — these would significantly boost actionability.
Consolidate failure modes into the relevant workflow steps as brief warnings rather than repeating guidance in a separate section, reducing redundancy and improving conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient and well-structured, but includes some redundancy — failure modes largely restate guidance already given in the four moves (e.g., scope drift is covered in both sections, TDD judgment is mentioned multiple times). Some sections like 'Your Stance' add flavor but limited actionable value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides clear procedural guidance with specific checklists (self-review checks, PR structure, feedback categorization), but lacks concrete executable examples — no actual commands for lint/type-check/test runs, no example PR description template, no example commit message. The guidance is specific in intent but abstract in execution. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-move sequence is clearly defined with explicit ordering (implement → self-review → PR → feedback). Self-review includes a validation gate with traffic-light verdicts (✅/🟡/🔴), and the feedback loop has clear re-request-review checkpoints. Preconditions establish entry criteria, and scope drift is handled with explicit decision branches. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to supporting files are well-signaled (references/self-review.md, references/pr.md, references/feedback.md, model.md, guidelines.md, test/SKILL.md), but no bundle files were provided to verify these exist. The main file itself is fairly long (~150 lines) with 'Common Patterns' and 'Failure Modes' sections that could potentially be extracted. The structure is reasonable but the inline content is heavy for an overview document. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |