Content
92%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 lean, well-sequenced orchestration protocol: dense procedural content with explicit verification and recovery loops and no padding. The only weaknesses are small actionability gaps — an unspecified default candidate count and an undefined 'shared grounding' artifact.
Suggestions
State a default candidate count (e.g., 'spawn 3 by default unless the task warrants more') so 'N' is actionable without the user supplying it.
Define the 'shared grounding' artifact in Phase A — what it contains and where it is written — since Phase B hands each candidate its path but no phase creates it.
Consider a one-line example rubric in Phase A (e.g., two criteria for a typical artifact) to make 'derive the rubric' concrete on first use.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every sentence is operational decision logic (model fallback chains, path conventions, tie-break rules) — nothing explains concepts Claude already knows, and it assumes competence (never defines 'worktree' or 'graft'). At ~49 dense lines for a six-phase orchestration protocol, every token earns its place; the 4 anchor's 'minor instances of over-explanation' do not appear. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is highly concrete ("run_in_background: true", "/tmp/arena-<slug>/candidate-<n>/", specific model slugs, todolist-first instruction) but has minor gaps: N is never given a default, and "the path to the shared grounding" in Phase B refers to an artifact no phase creates or defines. This fits the 4 anchor ('concrete guidance with minor gaps') better than 5, and clearly above 3 since nothing is pseudocode or hand-wavy. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases A–F are explicitly sequenced with a required upfront todolist, and validation is built in: Phase F verifies with feedback loops ("If verification finds a problem... go back to Phase E" / "re-frame and re-run"), plus dropout handling, tool-rejection fallbacks, and cross-judge disagreement resolution. This matches the 5 anchor's explicit validation steps and error-recovery loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files, and is cleanly organized into one section per phase plus an Outputs section — squarely the rubric's simple-skill exception for a 5. References to sibling principle skills (prove-it-works, redesign-from-first-principles) are clearly signaled by name, not buried. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |