Content
85%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, behavior-preservation-first workflow with genuine validation and recovery loops, appropriate offloading of the three reviewer rubrics to real one-level-deep reference files. The main improvement opportunity is tightening the host-interop paragraphs (lifecycle, tool-existence, model selection), which are noticeably longer than their operational value.
Suggestions
Condense the host-interop passages (agent lifecycle, blocking-question tool rules, model selection) to their core directives — e.g. 'release review-owned agents before advancing; if a dispatch cannot recover, run that pass inline with the same prompt' — trimming roughly a third of Step 1–2 text.
Add one concrete example of dispatching a reviewer (the call with the persona file content as prompt) to move actionability from specific-instruction to copy-paste-ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is directive throughout with no teaching of concepts Claude already knows — it gives orders, not lectures ("Do not paraphrase these rubrics from memory", "Each fix must preserve outputs, errors, side effects, and ordering"). The host-interop passages (tool-existence rules, agent lifecycle, model selection) run long with defensive legalese ("Do not infer released capacity from completion or interruption, or invent cleanup operations") that could be trimmed, keeping it below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable: exact git commands ("git diff HEAD"), verbatim file paths for the three reviewer prompts, named dispatch primitives ("Agent/Task in Claude Code, spawn_agent in Codex"), and specific verification commands (typecheck, lint, blast-radius-matched tests). It falls short of anchor 5 only because no example dispatch invocation or literal command sequence is shown — the guidance is specific but at the instruction level rather than copy-paste-ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: stop-and-ask when scope is empty, preflight before launching reviewers, gating ("Proceed only after all three review outcomes are complete"), and a verify step with explicit error recovery ("Fix simplification-caused failures or revert the responsible change; never relax assertions"). This matches anchor 5's sequence + explicit validation + error-recovery profile. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The SKILL.md is a workflow overview and the three reviewer rubrics are correctly split into one-level-deep, real bundle files (references/personas/code-reuse-reviewer.md, code-quality-reviewer.md, efficiency-reviewer.md, all present and substantive), each clearly signaled with a full relative path and explicit instructions to read and pass them verbatim. Content split and navigation match anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |