Content
71%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-organized, actionable workflow for publishing a branch for review with solid sequencing and feedback loops. The main weakness is redundancy between the Contract and Workflow sections and a vague validation step.
Suggestions
Collapse the 'Contract' and 'Publish Workflow' sections or explicitly differentiate them (invariants vs. ordered steps) to remove the overlapping restatement of rebase, force-with-lease, and reporting.
Make the validation step concrete by naming representative commands or the kind of checks to run, rather than 'Run relevant validation for the changed surface'.
Add an example invocation for opening the review (e.g. a `gh pr create`/`glab mr create` snippet) to lift actionability of the core deliverable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with concrete commands, but the 'Contract' section substantially restates the 'Publish Workflow' (rebase, force-with-lease, reporting), creating notable redundancy that could be tightened; not the minor-trim case of anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete git commands and flags ('git status -sb', '--force-with-lease', 'gh', 'glab'), but the core deliverable of opening the review request is left abstract ('using the host's tool/API/UI'), a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered sequence with a conflict-resolution feedback loop, stop conditions, and a validation step; held below 5 because the validation step is vague ('Run relevant validation for the changed surface') rather than specific. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short, single-purpose skill (~43 lines) with no need for external references, organized into clear 'Contract' and 'Publish Workflow' sections; matches the under-50-lines exception for a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |