Content
82%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 content is highly actionable and well-structured, with concrete rules, specific paths, and worked examples that cover common architectural review cases. It is efficient with only minor verbosity and clear navigation, though progressive disclosure could be improved by splitting dense sections into reference files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence, using checklists, tables, and terse rules rather than explaining what PRs or architectures are; minor redundancy (e.g., protected-files table echoed by the sweeping-refactor checklist) keeps it just short of fully lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete decision rules (REJECT/APPROVE with reasons), specific file paths, an authoritative protected-files table, and five worked examples with explicit findings and recommendations, fully covering the common cases for an instruction-only skill. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear structure from trigger conditions through eight review patterns to a structured output format with verdicts and severity levels; it is a read-only review rather than a destructive workflow, and verification guidance (e.g., batched testing, line-by-line deletion review) is present with only minor checkpoint gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections (Context, Patterns, Examples, Review Output Format, Anti-Patterns) with one well-signaled external reference to the sibling proposals skill; no bundle files exist, and the cohesive review guidance is appropriately inline, though at ~200 lines some patterns/examples could optionally be split out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |