Content
86%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 tight, well-structured review skill that is lean and well-organized with clear severity definitions and output ordering. The two minor gaps are the absence of a concrete finding/output example and an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow.
Suggestions
Add one short example of a formatted finding (e.g. a blocking-severity bug with file/line reference) to make the output pattern fully concrete.
Insert an explicit validation step in the workflow, such as re-confirming each flagged issue against the actual diff before reporting, to tighten workflow clarity.
Show a brief inline example of the severity ordering in action so the 'findings first, ordered by severity' rule is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean ~35 lines with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Overview, Workflow, Output Pattern, Example Prompts) earns its place and assumes Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, actionable guidance—defined severity tiers (Blocking/High/Medium/Low) and an explicit output ordering—but lacks a concrete example of what a finding or final review output should look like. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced six-step workflow with ordered severity flagging and a defined output pattern, but it has no explicit validation/feedback checkpoint (e.g. re-checking findings against the diff before reporting). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references and well-organized sections; confirmed no bundle files exist in references/scripts/assets, so the simple-skill exception applies and well-organized sections alone earn the top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |