Content
67%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 well-structured, highly actionable decision skill with concrete tables, a runnable verification command, and an unambiguous output contract; its referenced file paths (.claude/agents/*.md, package.json) are operational targets rather than bundle files, and no bundle exists. The main weakness is length — roughly 125 lines of discursive justification for a single decision, where a tighter core rubric plus a slimmed evidence section would preserve the guidance at lower token cost.
Suggestions
Tighten the 'Read this before you trust the rubric below' section: the transcript statistics (64,491 records, 9% missing, seventeen of thirty-four cards) can be compressed to 3–4 lines stating the conclusion — no level other than 'high' has ever been observed, so treat the effort recommendations as priors and say when guessing.
Move the repository cost history (the $6 isolated major bumps, the $41.70 sweep, the nine-of-twelve dependency PR detail) into a short reference file and keep only the operative rules in SKILL.md ('breadth is its own kind of hard — a wide sweep is not automatically mechanic').
Condense 'What consumes this' to two or three lines: it currently spends nine lines delineating scope that the description's orchestrate relationship already signals.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~125 lines of dense prose for a single decision, with extended justificatory sections ("Read this before you trust the rubric below", "What consumes this") that could be tightened or trimmed. It avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows — the statistics and cost history are repo-specific evidence — so it is mostly efficient, matching the "could be tightened" anchor rather than the noticeably padded one at 2. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, mostly executable guidance: two decision tables with specific criteria, a runnable command (`grep -n '"<package>"' <workspace>/package.json`), an explicit output contract ("One name from `.claude/agents/`, and one sentence saying why"), and instructions to read the chosen definition's `model:` and `effort:` lines. Not 5 because the grep carries placeholders and the core mapping rests on judgment calls rather than fully copy-paste-ready coverage of common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The decision flow is clearly sequenced — read the task and its complexity label, match against the rubric tables, verify the semver delta before choosing ("Check the semver delta before you choose, do not infer it"), read the chosen definition file, and emit one name plus a reason. Verification checkpoints are present ("Read the file of the one you choose rather than assuming either"), with minor gaps such as no explicit fallback check when the grep is inconclusive, fitting anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is self-contained with no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist) and no nested references; content is organized under clear section headers used at dispatch time. It fits anchor 4 — good structure with minor organization gaps — rather than 5 because the ~20-line evidence section (transcript statistics) is arguably reference material inlined in the main file, and the skill exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |