Content
75%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 body is well-structured, actionable, and properly splits detail into one-level-deep reference files. It would reach the top tier with an explicit validation gate in the critique step and slightly tighter prose.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence without re-explaining basic concepts, with only minor instances of guidance that could be trimmed (e.g. the Core Principles restating what the workflow covers). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable commands ('gh pr view', 'gh pr diff', 'git diff --staged') and points to vetted criteria files; minor gaps are delegated to reference files rather than spelled out inline. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step sequence is present with an explicit critique/refine step acting as a feedback loop ('Filter out or modify comments'), though the validation checkpoint is implicit rather than an explicit validate-then-proceed gate. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well split across clearly signaled one-level-deep references (splitting_reviews.md, review_criteria.md, critique_rules.md, split_diff.py) with a concise overview body; navigation is easy with only minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |