Content
73%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.
The body lays out a coherent six-phase orchestration workflow with strong sequencing, checkpoints, and verification feedback loops. Its weaknesses are token-efficiency and structure: the model-fallback contingency logic is written as dense run-on paragraphs that belong in a reference file, and the skill would be more actionable with one concrete example of a candidate prompt or synthesis note.
Suggestions
Move the model-selection and fallback contingency rules from Phase A step 3 and Phase C into a reference file (e.g. references/runners.md), keeping only the primary rule and the default pool inline in SKILL.md.
Break the Phase C paragraph into a short numbered sequence (choose pool entry from another family, spawn readonly judge, handle rejection) so the timing constraint and fallback order are scannable instead of buried in prose.
Add a minimal example of a candidate task prompt and the expected synthesis note format so Phase B and the Outputs section are copy-paste concrete rather than improvised.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Phase A step 3 and Phase C are run-on contingency chains ("If the Task tool rejects a configured entry... or drop the seat and say so when there is none. If dropped seats leave fewer than two runners, add runners until there are two...") that could be substantially tightened or split into a reference. The body never explains concepts Claude already knows, so it is above the 2 anchor, but multiple paragraphs need restructuring rather than minor trims, so it is below 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly executable: spawn all N in one message with `run_in_background: true`, output paths like `/tmp/arena-<slug>/candidate-<n>/`, concrete model slugs, and a todolist with named phases. It falls short of 5 because no example candidate prompt, rubric, or synthesis-note template is given, leaving the actual artifacts to be improvised. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six labeled phases (Frame through Verify) form a clear sequence with a todolist checklist, a cross-judge comparison checkpoint in Phase D, and explicit verification with error-recovery feedback loops in Phase F ("go back to Phase E", "re-frame and re-run"). The batch-operation cap does not apply because validation is explicitly present, and Phase C even specifies timing ("Don't spawn it while candidates are still writing"). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The ~42-line body is organized into clean per-phase sections, but the bulky model-selection fallback policy in Phases A and C is inlined where a one-level-deep reference file would serve better. External references (../../docs/harness/claude-code.md, ~/.cursor/rules/pstack-models.mdc, four bold-named principle skills) are signaled by name only and none exist in this bundle, which is a minor organization gap rather than the clear split of the 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |