Content
78%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 an exemplary lean process skill: a tight numbered loop with an explicit stop condition and stability constraints, and no wasted tokens. Its only weakness is that several steps (selecting projects, capturing output, comparing behavior) are stated as goals rather than executable guidance.
Suggestions
Add one concrete example per vague step — e.g., the command used to capture output from a fixture, or how 'compare behavior' is performed (diff, saved transcripts, panel verdicts) — to lift actionability.
Add a short branch for the failure case: when the panel blocks, explicitly tie the fix to the consensus concern and re-run only the affected projects, making the error-recovery loop explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~20 lines with no concept explanations, no padding, and no over-teaching; every line is an instruction or constraint ('Keep the corpus stable across iterations. Preserve output contracts...'), matching the score-5 anchor 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place'; there is nothing to trim down to a 4. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Two fully concrete commands are given ('npm --prefix benchmarks run download-fixtures', 'Run `panel-review`'), but steps like 'Capture actual output for each project', 'Select representative projects', and 'Implement the smallest coherent improvement' provide no command, example, or criteria for execution, matching the score-3 anchor 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'; it is above a 2 because the setup and review steps are executable as written. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The seven steps are clearly sequenced with an explicit feedback loop ('Run panel-review... Implement the smallest coherent improvement... Re-run the same corpus and compare behavior') and an explicit stop condition ('Stop when the panel has no blocks'), matching the score-4 anchor; it falls short of 5 because error recovery is only implied — there is no explicit instruction for what to do when the panel blocks or how to compare behavior. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, needs no external reference files, and is well organized (setup paragraph, numbered procedure, closing constraints), which per the judging guidelines lets a simple skill score 5; the one external pointer ('[benchmark setup](../../../BENCHMARKS.md#comparative-benchmarks)') is a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference, not buried navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |