Content
80%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 concise and actionable with well-organized sections, but it lacks a sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints for its batch/destructive agent operations. Adding a verification step and demonstrating the stop command would lift the weakest dimensions.
Suggestions
Add a short sequenced workflow with a validation checkpoint, e.g. run 'doctor' to verify setup, check 'list'/'monitor' status before stop, and re-check after assign.
Include a 'stop' command example in Common commands to match the start/stop/monitor/assign actions advertised in the description.
Show how to verify an assigned task's output (e.g. tail/monitor after assign) so the feedback loop is explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | At roughly 40 lines with no concept over-explanation, the body is lean and assumes Claude's competence; every section (When to use, Prerequisites, Common commands, Notes) earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The Common commands block gives concrete, copy-paste-ready invocations (doctor, list, start, monitor --follow, assign heredoc); not 5 because 'stop' is named in When-to-use but never demonstrated with a command, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Commands are listed but not sequenced into a workflow with validation checkpoints, and the skill performs batch/destructive operations (multi-agent start/stop/assign); the rubric caps workflow_clarity at 3 when such operations lack validation feedback loops. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references (the references/scripts/assets bundle directories are absent), and is organized into clear sections, so the simple-skills exception applies and it scores 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |