Content
86%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 a lean, well-structured single-purpose skill with an executable command and a clear conditional branch. Its main weakness is the vague 'act on the feedback' instruction, which lacks concrete guidance for handling different feedback types.
Suggestions
Add brief, concrete guidance on how to handle common feedback types (e.g. apply a suggested diff, respond to a comment, or push a fix) rather than the generic 'act on the feedback'.
Clarify what counts as an approval/LGTM result so the acknowledge-vs-act branch is unambiguous.
Optionally note how $ARGUMENTS is interpreted (worktree vs. PR URL) so the command's behavior is explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is extremely lean (a single executable command plus one short instruction) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the anchor 5 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides a concrete, executable command ('!`plannotator review $ARGUMENTS`') but the subsequent 'act on the feedback' guidance is high-level without specifics on how to address different feedback types, fitting anchor 4's 'minor gaps' rather than the fully copy-paste-ready coverage of 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | There is a clear two-step sequence with an explicit conditional branch (address feedback vs. acknowledge an LGTM), but the 'act on feedback' step is itself under-specified and lacks any checkpoint detail, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than a clean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, needs no external references, and is organized into clear sections ('Code review feedback' / 'Your task'), so per the simple-skill exception it qualifies for anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |