Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a lean, well-sequenced iterative workflow with a concrete feedback loop and an appropriate one-level reference, weakened only by a couple of steps that stay abstract about how to capture and compare output.
Suggestions
Make "Capture actual output for each project" concrete, e.g. specify where output is saved or which command produces it.
Give "Re-run the same corpus and compare behavior" a concrete comparison method (e.g. a diff command or a recorded baseline to compare against).
Specify how `panel-review` is invoked (its arguments or the evidence format it expects) so the instruction is copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~24 lines with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place, matching the lean level-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete commands and paths appear ("npm --prefix benchmarks run download-fixtures", "benchmarks/fixtures/real-world/", "panel-review"), but steps like "Capture actual output for each project" and "compare behavior" lack the specifics needed to be fully executable. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step numbered sequence includes an explicit feedback loop (re-run the corpus and compare behavior) and a stop-criterion checkpoint ("Stop when the panel has no blocks"), matching the level-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a short skill with no bundle files; its single one-level-deep, clearly signaled reference to BENCHMARKS.md satisfies the level-3 simple-skill allowance. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |