Content
67%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 well-structured, highly actionable review workflow with concrete commands, mechanical verdict rules, and an explicit verification checklist. Its main gaps are token padding (decorative ASCII art, rationale sections, redundant rules) and the lack of error-recovery guidance or an explicit dispatch mechanism for the three perspectives. Progressive disclosure is adequate for a bundleless skill but the large inline checklists could be moved to reference files.
Suggestions
Cut the ASCII dispatch diagram and 'Why 3 Perspectives, Not 6' section — the dispatch structure is already stated in the opening line and Workflow section, saving ~30 lines.
Consolidate duplicated rules (evidence required, no sycophancy, mechanical verdict) that appear in both the Rules and Verification Protocol/Anti-Rationalization sections.
Add brief error-recovery guidance: what to do when a scoped command fails (beyond '|| true' silencing) or when a perspective cannot run, e.g., 'if npm audit is unavailable, note it in the output and continue with manual dependency checks'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly dense, useful material (checklists, commands, rules), but the ~20-line ASCII dispatch diagram, the 'Why 3 Perspectives, Not 6' rationale section, and rules repeated across the Rules, Verification Protocol, and Anti-Rationalization sections are unnecessary padding, matching anchor 3's 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'. Not 4 because the padding spans multiple sections rather than minor instances. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete copy-paste commands with fallbacks (grep patterns for 'v-html', 'dangerouslySetInnerHTML', ': any'; npm audit; vitest/jest), a mechanical verdict table, and an explicit output template give mostly executable guidance, matching anchor 4. Not 5 because the core dispatch mechanism — how to actually invoke the three @reviewer/@security/@tester perspectives concurrently — is left implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step sequence is clear with IF/THEN scope-detection logic and a Verification Protocol checklist ('Before claiming the review is complete'), matching anchor 4's 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. Not 5 because there are no error-recovery/feedback loops — failures are silently swallowed ('|| true') with no guidance on what to do when a check or command fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized with clear headers and no nested references, and inlining the three perspective tables is defensible since all perspectives run on every invocation, matching anchor 4's 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed'. Not 5 because the 250-line file keeps all detail inline where the three perspective checklists (~70 lines) could be split into one-level-deep reference files to slim the always-loaded overview. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |