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.
The body is exceptionally concise and well-structured for a simple read-only skill, but its workflow steps lack concrete executable commands, weakening actionability.
Suggestions
Add specific commands to the workflow steps, e.g. resolving the PR with `gh pr view --json number` and fetching comments with `gh pr view --comments` or the GraphQL API.
Give a concrete example of the grouped output format so the "Return a concise action list" step is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no concept over-explanation or padding; every line (Trigger, four-step Workflow, Output) earns its place and assumes Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps like "Resolve the active PR" and "Fetch review comments and discussion comments" are high-level hints with no concrete commands (e.g. `gh pr view --comments`), so the specific execution path is missing. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four steps form a clear, ordered sequence; the operation is read-only so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply, though no explicit checkpoints are given. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized Trigger/Workflow/Output sections and no need for external references, fitting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |