Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A tight, well-sequenced procedural skill that excels at conciseness, workflow clarity, and progressive disclosure by pointing to the right repo docs at each step. The main gap is actionability: one step relies on undefined "pipeline order" and a vague synchronization directive rather than concrete instruction.
Suggestions
Make step 6 concrete: name the pipeline stages or link to the doc that defines "pipeline order", and specify what "synchronized" means (regenerate contracts, rebuild docs, push companions).
For step 7, consider listing the gate categories or pointing to the specific gate list so "every applicable gate" is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | A lean ~25-line procedural body with no concept explanations or padding; every line is a direct instruction, assuming Claude's competence as the anchor requires. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Most steps point to concrete artifacts ("AGENTS.md", "docs/development/quality-gates.md", "apply_patch", ".plans/<task>.md"), but step 6 ("Implement in pipeline order and keep generated contracts, public docs, and companion repositories synchronized") is abstract with undefined "pipeline order" and no executable detail. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear nine-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints ("Run every applicable gate", "Resolve every block") and a fix-and-retry feedback loop, plus verification evidence in step 9. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a lean overview that defers detail to clearly signaled, one-level-deep repo docs (task-context-map, quality-gates, review-routing), with no nested reference chains; no bundle files exist to contradict this. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |