Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is exceptionally concise and well-organized for a simple instruction skill, but the core mapping step is directional rather than fully executable and the parallel-review/synthesis workflow lacks validation checkpoints. Tightening the mapping method and adding a completeness check would raise the weaker dimensions.
Suggestions
Specify how to map touched paths to reviewer domains (e.g. reference the domain table in review-routing.md or give a concrete lookup step) rather than leaving step 2 directional.
Add a validation checkpoint before briefing reviewers, e.g. confirm the selected team is minimum-complete and covers all touched domains.
Add a checkpoint in the synthesis step for resolving disagreements (e.g. escalate unresolved blocks) to satisfy the feedback-loop guideline for batch operations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~10 lean lines with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line is a concrete instruction that earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete inputs and conditions ('current diff', 'docs/development/review-routing.md', 'when contracts or multiple consumers change'), but the core step 'Map touched paths and behavioral effects to reviewer domains' is directional rather than a fully specified, executable method. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence exists, but the parallel/batch review step and verdict synthesis lack explicit validation checkpoints, which the guidelines say caps workflow clarity at 2 for batch operations. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple under-50-line skill with no need for external bundle references, organized as a clear numbered list, which per the scoring notes qualifies for the top anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |