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 body is a well-structured, actionable orchestration workflow with concrete commands and a validation feedback loop. Its main weakness is repetition of mode-handling per phase and somewhat long inline output templates that could be tightened.
Suggestions
Consolidate the Automatic/Interactive mode branching and the 'IGNORE any Next Step message' note into a single statement referenced once, instead of restating them in every phase.
Shorten the verbose mode-banner, intermediate-output, and final-summary template blocks, or move them to a reference file, to reduce token weight.
Add an explicit mid-workflow checkpoint in automatic mode (e.g. a lightweight verification after Phase 1 init) so validation is not only at the very end.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient procedural instruction without padding Claude's prior knowledge, but it restates the Automatic/Interactive branching and the 'IGNORE any Next Step message' note in every phase, which could be consolidated. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, executable guidance — mkdir/glob/date commands, exact template paths, placeholder mappings, and explicit sibling-skill invocations with flags — with only minor steps described in prose rather than as copy-paste commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four phases are clearly sequenced with a final sanity-review validation and a repair→re-run feedback loop plus per-phase error handling; the gap is that automatic mode validates only at the end rather than between phases. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well organized under clear headers (Core Task, Execution Steps, phases, Output Description, Safety & Fallback) in a single file with no external bundle; structure is good though monolithic with long inline output templates. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |