Content
71%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 well-structured, actionable body with concrete commands and a clear request workflow. Its weaknesses are minor redundancy and a referenced template file that is not actually bundled or clearly linked.
Suggestions
Bundle the referenced code-reviewer.md template (or a references/ version) and link it with standard markdown link syntax so the reference is clearly signaled.
Remove the overlap between "Red Flags" and "How to Request" (e.g., the push-back guidance appears twice).
Add a brief verification note confirming the SHAs were captured successfully before dispatching the subagent.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence, but the "Red Flags" section duplicates push-back guidance already in "How to Request" and "Integration with Workflows" repeats the per-task review rule, so a little could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands (git rev-parse), an explicit placeholder list, and a feedback triage table make this mostly copy-paste ready; the template itself is referenced but not embedded, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear three-step sequence (get SHAs, dispatch subagent, act on feedback) with priority-based feedback handling; validation checkpoints are light but appropriate since this skill requests rather than performs destructive changes. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is well sectioned, but the referenced template (code-reviewer.md) is not present in the bundle and is only signposted inline rather than with a clear one-level-deep markdown link, leaving organization somewhat incomplete. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |