Content
70%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is a tight, well-sequenced workflow with strong checkpoints and validation feedback loops. The two lowest dimensions reflect overlapping Contract/Workflow sections and vague validation guidance rather than missing process.
Suggestions
Collapse or cross-reference the Contract and Publish Workflow sections to remove the overlapping restatement of the same steps.
Replace vague validation phrases ("validate when useful", "relevant validation") with concrete examples such as `npm test`, `pytest`, or `make ci` so the guidance is copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is command-oriented and free of concept explanations, but the Contract (steps 1-8) and Publish Workflow (steps 1-10) restate the same actions, adding redundancy that keeps it just short of the lean 3. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete git commands and host tools (gh, glab) are given, but validation guidance stays vague ("validate when useful", "relevant validation for the changed surface") without naming specific commands, so it is not fully copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly numbered sequence with explicit checkpoints (stop on uncommitted changes, stop if resolution unclear), a validation step, and a conflict-resolution feedback loop matches the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A sub-50-line single-purpose skill with well-organized sections (Contract, Publish Workflow) and no need for external references fits the simple-skill exception that allows a 3 with just well-organized sections. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |