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 content is a well-structured coordination guide with a clear 4-scene workflow, concrete spawn commands, explicit failure recovery, and a QA validation loop. Its weaknesses are moderate meta-overhead (SSL-primitive and resource-scope tables) that inflates token cost, and a few validation steps that state intent without a concrete method.
Suggestions
Trim or merge the Actions/SSL-primitive and Resource-scope tables into the workflow steps, since they restate actions already covered without adding executable guidance.
Make the VERIFY checkpoints concrete: specify how to verify API contract alignment (e.g., diff shared schema files or a specific check command) instead of "Verify API contracts align between agents".
Consolidate the ../_shared/... file references into the References section so the body's dependency on external policy files is navigable in one place.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but meta-scaffolding like the Actions/"SSL primitive" table, the Resource scope table, and the Intent signature section add tokens that do not directly instruct execution. This matches "Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened"; it is not 2 because no section is heavily padded or redundant with basic knowledge. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands are provided ("oma agent spawn pm <pm-prompt-file> <session-id> --task-id <plan.pm_task.id> -w ./pm", parallel spawns with & and wait, useful spawn flags like --isolation worktree), plus a concrete progress-file naming pattern. It is not 5 because some guidance remains abstract, e.g., "Verify API contracts align between agents" gives no concrete method or command. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-step sequence (Plan, Spawn, Monitor, QA) is present with a feedback loop (rerun affected checks before finalizing), a failure-and-recovery section, and transitions for routing. It matches "Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps" rather than 5 because some checkpoints are implicit, such as how contract alignment or QA blocking defects are concretely verified. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single SKILL.md is well organized with clear sections and one-level-deep references to shared files (collaboration-policy.md, execution-policy.md, memory-protocol.md, code-intelligence.md) rather than nested chains. It matches "Good structure; most content appropriately placed; references mostly clear"; it is not 5 because the shared-file references are scattered mid-body instead of consolidated, and no bundle files exist in this skill to verify against. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |