Content
85%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.
An exceptionally actionable skill body: verbatim commands, concrete routing rules, explicit mid-run and final validation with recovery steps, and well-structured one-level-deep references. The only weakness is verbosity — motivational and repeated prose around the report-shape rules that could be tightened without losing the procedural content.
Suggestions
Trim the motivational framing in Step 0 (e.g. "The file is the deliverable: a run that leaves a differently-shaped file has produced nothing, however good the analysis inside it. Writing the shape now means the rest of the run only fills it in. Leaving it until the end is how a section goes missing.") to a single directive sentence — the rule lands identically without the rhetoric.
The report-shape rules are stated three times (Step 0, the Step 2 mid-run check, and Report shape/final check); consolidate the rationale into one place and keep only the commands plus the expected counts at the checkpoints.
Cut meta-commentary that explains the skill's own organization rather than instructing the reviewer, such as "They are there rather than here because no scenario in this repository's eval suite exercises them, not because they matter less" — the open-condition ("open the file whenever Step 1 routes to one of them") already carries the instruction.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly dense, high-value, repo-specific guidance, but includes motivational padding ("The file is the deliverable: a run that leaves a differently-shaped file has produced nothing, however good the analysis inside it", "not because they matter less", "costs the review its credibility") and restates the shape rules three times in prose. This matches anchor 3 ("mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened") rather than 4, where over-explanation would be only minor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable throughout: a verbatim `cat > SECURITY-REVIEW.md <<'EOF'` skeleton, copy-paste `BASE=$(git config ...)` base-branch resolution, a concrete grep routing table with exact patterns, a `grep -c` shape check with expected output ("It must print 4"), a 4-step sibling-verb comparison procedure, a JWT-options tabulation procedure with a decision rule per claim, and an exact finding-format template — matching anchor 5 (copy-paste ready, covering the common cases). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence (Step 0 skeleton → Step 1 route the diff → Step 2 work mandatory sections → report sections → final check) with explicit validation checkpoints and error-recovery feedback loops: the mid-run "Check the shape once, as soon as the first finding is in the file" with instructions to "restore the 4 headings, put the finding back under the right one, and edit from then on", plus a routing-table checklist. This matches anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Two one-level-deep reference files, both verified to exist (references/checklists.md, references/compliance.md), are clearly signaled with explicit open-conditions ("open the file whenever Step 1 routes to one of them"; "read that file when the diff adds a column, a table, a request body …"), and the routing table maps grep hits to the reference sections. Hot-path checklists are inlined and cold-path ones split out — a clear overview with easy navigation, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |