Content
75%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 a lean, well-structured router guide with concrete commands, explicit limits, safety gates, and a genuine validation feedback loop for catalog edits. Main improvement areas are defining the pipeline-signal heuristic and tightening a few explanatory passages.
Suggestions
Define what counts as a 'sinal forte de pipeline' (e.g., multi-stage deliverables, gates/criteria, pre-commit polishing) so step 4 of the decision order is deterministic rather than judgment-based.
Trim the closing checkpoint paragraph to its actionable core (revert -> re-adjust -> re-run eval) and condense the intro sentences about the intent-classifier hook.
Since no bundle files are present, either inline the one or two rules actually needed from `policies/progressive-skill-loading.md` and `policies/tool-safety.md` or ship them in the skill's references so the signaled navigation is verifiable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient — compact tables for programs and plugins, a five-step decision list, and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — but the closing checkpoint paragraph and a few framing sentences (e.g., the intent-classifier explanation) could be trimmed slightly, matching anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than anchor 5's every-token-earns-its-place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly executable: a concrete command (`node scripts/route-task.mjs "<task>"`), numeric limits ("ate tres plugins e seis skills"), a named fallback (skill 09 `orchestrator`), and a runnable verification block; the gap keeping it below anchor 5 is that "sinal forte de pipeline" is undefined, leaving the program-selection step to judgment. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered decision order is a clear sequence, the Verification section provides explicit commands, and the checkpoint paragraph encodes a real feedback loop (eval fails -> revert catalog edit -> re-adjust until old cases pass); it falls short of anchor 5 because choosing among the seven programs rests on one-line table criteria with no validation for that choice. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The ~70-line body is a well-sectioned overview whose external references (`policies/progressive-skill-loading.md`, `policies/tool-safety.md`, `plugins/catalog/*.json`, `programs/*.yml`) are one level deep and clearly signaled; the minor gap versus anchor 5 is that none of these referenced files ship in the skill bundle itself, so navigation to them cannot be verified locally. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |