Content
48%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 skill delivers a genuinely clear coordination workflow with explicit QA and recovery checkpoints, but nearly a third of the body is duplicated or abstract meta-content that should be trimmed. Its sole external reference is a dangling path, and one actionability inconsistency (spawn-agent.sh vs oma agent:spawn) would confuse an executor.
Suggestions
Collapse the duplicated workflow framings: keep one representation (either the Scenes/Transitions model or the numbered Steps 1-4) and delete the redundant copy, including the repeated bash spawn block and the empty '### Workflow' header.
Fix the dangling reference: either create 'resources/examples.md' (or move it to a standard references/ directory and update both the Dependencies and References sections to one consistent path) or remove the citation.
Reconcile the spawning instructions: Step 2 says 'Use spawn-agent.sh for each task' while the canonical path uses 'oma agent:spawn' — pick one, and add a concrete method for the 'Validate contracts' checkpoint (e.g., what file or command to inspect to confirm API/data model alignment).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body carries substantial structural redundancy: the PREPARE/ACT/VERIFY/FINALIZE 'Scenes' duplicate the 'Workflow' Steps 1-4, 'Control-flow features' repeats the 'Transitions' section, the bash spawn example appears nearly identically twice (canonical command path and Step 2), 'resources/examples.md' is cited in both Dependencies and References, and abstract meta-tables ('SSL primitive', 'Resource scope') add tokens without actionable value. This matches 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' rather than score 3, where excess would be limited to isolated tightening. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands exist ('oma agent:spawn backend "task description" session-id -w ./backend &', polling 'progress-{agent}.md'), but Step 2's 'Use spawn-agent.sh for each task' contradicts the canonical 'oma agent:spawn' path, and key operations are underspecified ('Verify API contracts align between agents' gives no method, and 'agent_cli_mapping in oma-config.yaml' references a file not in the bundle). This sits between minimal-guidance (2) and mostly-executable (4): real commands are present but with material gaps and an internal inconsistency. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is explicit (Entry, PREPARE/ACT/VERIFY/FINALIZE, Steps 1-4) with checkpoints present: monitoring progress files, contract-alignment verification, a mandatory final QA review, and remediation by re-spawning agents on CRITICAL issues, plus a dedicated failure-and-recovery section. Not score 5 because validation steps lack concrete commands or feedback-loop detail (no way given to actually check contract alignment), and not score 3 because checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well-sectioned, but the only external reference, 'resources/examples.md', is dangling — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist in the bundle — so navigation to it fails. Score 3 ('references present but not clearly signaled / could be better organized') fits: not 4 because a broken reference target undermines navigation, and not 2 because the body is not a monolithic wall of text and references are not deeply nested. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |