Content
92%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 dense, well-sequenced procedural skill with explicit validation checkpoints, error-recovery guidance, and executable commands for stack creation, linking, and verification. The only notable gap is that the commit-reconstruction workflow in section 2 lacks concrete commands, leaving the trickiest mechanical step to inference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence: it never explains what PRs or stacking are, and every sentence carries a rule or instruction (e.g. "Do not split by arbitrary line counts, leave callers broken, or defer tests to a later PR"). | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Submission, linking, verification, and diff validation all have concrete executable commands, but the central commit-reconstruction step is directed only in prose ("reconstructing commits in isolated branches or worktrees") with no specific commands or example approach. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four clearly sequenced phases each carry explicit validation — run tests at each layer's head and on the combined result, require non-null "stack" objects with matching identity via the API check, and an error-recovery loop ("After an error, inspect what succeeded before retrying") — including cautions for the destructive rebase/force-push operations. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | With no bundle files, the ~63-line body is appropriately self-contained: well-organized numbered sections delegate detail via clearly signaled one-level-deep links (CONTRIBUTING.md, AGENTS.md, fla-pr-readiness, GitHub docs) instead of inlining it. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |