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 exemplar of token efficiency and appropriate delegation — a short, cleanly sequenced workflow that pushes routing detail to one external doc. Its main weakness is actionability: several steps tell Claude what to do without showing how, so execution depends heavily on the referenced routing document.
Suggestions
Add one concrete example of mapping (e.g., "a change to `src/contracts/*.ts` maps to the contracts owner plus every consumer") or a sample reviewer-brief line to make steps 2-4 executable rather than directional.
Specify how to run step 5 in practice (e.g., dispatching parallel subagents and what artifact each returns) so "run independent reviews in parallel" has an operational shape.
Insert a verification checkpoint before synthesis, such as confirming each reviewer's verdict references the diff hunk or file it covers, to close the validation gap in workflow clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~15-line body is lean and efficient: six terse numbered instructions plus one caution line ("Do not select reviewers only from filenames when behavior affects additional consumers"), with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and every token earning its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Step 1 gives a concrete pointer ("Read the current diff and `docs/development/review-routing.md`") and the steps are sequenced, but "Map touched paths and behavioral effects to reviewer domains", "Brief reviewers with the diff", and "Synthesize verdicts" are high-level directives with no commands, examples, or specifics on how to execute them — some concrete guidance, incomplete overall. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six steps form a clear, well-ordered sequence from reading inputs through synthesis, and the closing caution acts as a guardrail; however, no explicit validation checkpoint exists before synthesizing verdicts (e.g., confirming each reviewer's files were actually examined), leaving a minor validation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a sub-50-line skill with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), a well-organized single-purpose body, and exactly one clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference (docs/development/review-routing.md) that carries the routing detail — matching the rubric's guidance that such skills can score 5 on organization alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |