Content
86%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.
A lean, highly actionable review workflow with concrete commands, an explicit pattern checklist, and clear output classifications. The main weaknesses are the undefined $SCOPE variable in step 2b, the inconsistent step numbering, and no instruction for handling failed automated checks.
Suggestions
Define the scope variable consistently: step 2b uses "$SCOPE" but the body only defines "$ARGUMENTS" — either define $SCOPE (e.g., "SCOPE=$ARGUMENTS") or use $ARGUMENTS directly in the /review-check-architecture invocation.
Renumber steps 2b and 3 into a clean 1–5 sequence so the workflow order is unambiguous.
Add a brief instruction for failed automated checks (e.g., whether failures auto-classify as VIOLATION or require inspection before classification) to close the validation feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | "Perform a full code review of changed files, validating against `docs/ARCHITECTURE.md`" opens directly, and the rest is terse commands and bullet checklists with zero concept explanation. Lean and efficient; every token earns its place, matching the 5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready commands ("git diff --name-only HEAD~1", "npx tsc --noEmit", "npx eslint --ext .ts,.tsx src/ --max-warnings 0") and concrete classification labels (VIOLATION/ATTENTION/COMPLIANT/HIGHLIGHT). However, "Run /review-check-architecture $SCOPE" references an undefined variable ($SCOPE is never defined; the body defines $ARGUMENTS), a minor gap that fits the 4 anchor's "minor gaps" rather than the 5 anchor's fully executable guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence (identify files → run checks → check patterns → classify → report) with automated checks serving as validation checkpoints; as a read-only review skill, the destructive-operation cap does not apply. The out-of-order "2b." step numbering and the absence of any guidance on what to do when automated checks fail keep it below the 5 anchor's "feedback loops for error recovery". | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), and the body is ~35 lines with well-organized sections and an appropriate pointer to the project's docs/ARCHITECTURE.md. Per the rubric's simple-skill exception (under 50 lines, no need for external references), well-organized sections alone warrant a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |