Content
88%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 a highly actionable, well-sequenced workflow with strong validation checkpoints and clearly signaled references to companion skills and rules. The only minor weakness is a few explanatory sentences that assume Claude needs the "why" spelled out.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly directive and lean with concrete commands, but contains a few justifying sentences that could be trimmed (e.g. "This step prevents wasted effort on the wrong solution", "This is valuable when you cannot fully predict..."). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready commands (`gh issue view ... --json ...`, `make format && make lint`, `pwd`, branch-name format), concrete conventions (`Dict[str, Any]`, `def test_*() -> None:`, `@pytest.mark.parametrize`), and a full report template covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Eight numbered steps with sub-steps are clearly sequenced, and verification (7a/7b/7c) includes explicit validation, feedback loops ("Stop and fix issues before proceeding"), human-approval gates (ExitPlanMode, confirm-before-commit), and a hard stop on cwd mismatch. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the single SKILL.md is well-sectioned with clear headers and one-level-deep, well-signaled cross-skill/rule references (`/worktree-from-issue`, `/review-pr`, `@CLAUDE.md`, `@.claude/rules/worktree.md`), with only minor inlining of the review checklist and report template. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |