Content
57%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-organized orchestration skill that effectively serves as a routing document for a team-worker architecture. Its strengths are in progressive disclosure and clear role delegation. Its weaknesses are the lack of explicit validation checkpoints integrated into the workflow, some verbosity in the architecture description, and limited concrete executable examples for the CLI tools and pipeline execution.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation/checkpoint steps between pipeline stages (e.g., 'After scan completes, verify scan/ output exists before spawning assessor') to improve workflow clarity for this multi-step destructive process.
Include a concrete end-to-end example showing a minimal invocation and expected output (e.g., what happens when a user says 'team tech debt --mode=scan') to improve actionability.
Trim the ASCII architecture diagram or replace with a more compact representation — the role registry table already conveys the hierarchy effectively.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably efficient and avoids explaining basic concepts, but includes some structural detail (like the full ASCII architecture diagram and verbose spawn template) that could be tightened. The role registry table and session directory tree are useful but borderline verbose for a routing document. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The worker spawn template is concrete and near-executable, and the role router logic is clear. However, much of the content describes architecture rather than giving step-by-step executable instructions — the actual domain logic is deferred to role files. The CLI tool references (ccw cli) lack concrete usage examples with expected outputs. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The pipeline stages (scan → assess → plan → fix → validate) are clearly sequenced, and the architecture diagram shows the flow. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops between stages — error handling is listed as a table of scenarios but not integrated into the workflow steps. For a system involving destructive operations (executor modifying code), this gaps caps the score. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is well-structured as a router/overview document with clear one-level-deep references to role files (roles/<name>/role.md) and specs (specs/pipelines.md). The role registry table provides a clean navigation index, and content is appropriately split between this overview and the referenced role files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |