Content
61%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 token-efficient and well-sectioned for a self-contained skill, but its guidance is more conceptual checklist than executable playbook: no example subagent prompts or templates, and the verify step lacks explicit criteria or a fix-retry loop. Restructuring the bullets into an ordered workflow with validation criteria would lift both actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Restructure the workflow into an explicitly ordered sequence (prep → CODEMAP → detect task type → scope → dispatch → merge → verify) so the sequence is not scattered across concept bullets.
Add one or two concrete example subagent prompts (or a scope/boundary template) showing exactly what to pass for 'scope paths, goal, context, ...' — currently only the field names are given.
Make the verification step actionable: specify what the verify subagents check (boundary violations, missed files, contract adherence) and what to do on failure (re-dispatch with corrections).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense bullet-point guidance with no padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, matching level 4's 'efficient; minor instances ... that could be trimmed'. It is not level 5 because fragments like 'Two strategies (mutually exclusive)' and the terse 'Subagent: discoverer, explore, etc.' bullets restate or dangle information that could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Some guidance is concrete (the subagent output structure listing 'analysis scope, TLDR answer, quick navigation ...', and the enumerated fields to pass each subagent), but there are no example prompts, templates, or commands, and directives like 'Resolve cross-scope deps via execution ordering' stay abstract — matching level 3's 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'. It is not level 2 because the field lists and output structures give more than high-level hints. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence exists (prerequisites → detect task type → scope → spawn subagents → summarize/merge → verify), but the ordering is fragmented across 'core_concepts' bullets and the sole checkpoint ('spawn another set of subagents to verify that the work was done properly') is vague with no criteria or fix-retry loop, matching level 3's 'steps listed but validation gaps'. Level 4 requires most checkpoints to be explicit and concrete. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a short, self-contained body (~60 lines) with no bundle directories, and content is organized into sections (role, when-to-use, two strategy subsections, task-type detection, scoping), matching level 4's 'good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps'. It is not level 5 because the flat bullet mixing of prerequisites, strategy details, and generic scoping rules could be organized more cleanly, and the KB references (init-workspace-discovery, reverse-engineering) are named without paths or navigation. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |