Content
81%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.
A well-structured, mostly lean workflow skill with strong sequencing and explicit validation gates around its one write action. The find/judge phases are guidance-heavy rather than executable, and a couple of contextual asides could be tightened.
Suggestions
Tighten the contextual framing in the intro ('The split mirrors the feature track...') to only what is needed to act, trimming the over-explanation.
Add one or two concrete, runnable checks for the 'Find the gap' and 'Judge' phases (e.g., a specific grep/coverage command) to lift actionability beyond the issue-filing step.
Consider a one-line pointer to where the suite definitions and not-protected list physically live so navigation to docs/quality/ is unambiguous on first read.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and imperative with no concept padding, but a few contextual asides ('The split mirrors the feature track...') could be trimmed without losing the actionable core. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete executable commands ('gh issue create --label qa --label auto-generated', 'gh issue lock <number>', 'git log --oneline -30 origin/main') and a precise issue-body spec, while the find/judge phases lean more on guidance than runnable steps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Orient → Find → Judge → File is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (queue back-pressure 'file NOTHING', the 'ALL must hold' bar, 'verify the gap in the code', and 'if nothing passes the bar, file nothing') gating the write operation. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with clearly signaled one-level-deep references to repo docs (docs/quality/03-assurance-map.md, docs/qa-log.md); no bundle files exist to evaluate, and structure is good though not maximally split. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |