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.
A dense, well-structured orchestration contract whose dispatch template is genuinely actionable and whose phases carry real validation checkpoints. Its weaknesses are readability and executability at the margins: one badly run-on topology item, a few high-level directives without concrete patterns, and no error-recovery loop showing what happens when verification fails.
Suggestions
Split the run-on Topology item 2 into discrete bullet rules and drop the aphorisms ("trusts but verify", "if anything could go wrong - it will go wrong") in favor of one plain directive per line.
Make "Use TEMP folder" and "Define collision-safe strategy" concrete — name a path convention and a specific collision-avoidance pattern (e.g., per-subagent output subdirectories).
Add an explicit error-recovery loop for reviewer rejection: reviewer reports defects → orchestrator re-dispatches with findings appended → re-review before integration, mirroring the validate → fix → re-validate pattern.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient — the numbered directives are lean imperatives with no pedagogical padding — but item 2 is a long run-on mixing role philosophy and aphorisms ("Orchestrator is senior team lead and effective manager; ... makes the process poka-yoke and reliable itself, `trusts but verify`, `if anything could go wrong - it will go wrong`, ... subagents can cheat, consults with architect..."), and several template annotations are tangled enough to need tightening. Not 2 because no whole section is padded; not 4 because the run-on is more than a minor trim. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The dispatch template is concrete and copy-paste-ready with well-labeled placeholder sections (SMART tasks, scope boundaries with DO/DO NOT, acceptance criteria, failure conditions, evidence requirements), covering the main use case. Scored 4 rather than 5 because some directives remain high-level ("Use TEMP folder", "Define collision-safe strategy for parallel file writes") with no concrete pattern, and there is no worked dispatch example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The process is clearly sequenced by phase (Topology → Dispatch → Routing → Quality) with explicit checkpoints ("Quality-gate before dispatch... Never dispatch ambiguous instructions", "never integrate unverified output", and the Review/Validate distinction). Scored 4 rather than 5 because there are no explicit error-recovery/feedback loops (e.g., what to do when a reviewer rejects output or a subagent reports a failure condition). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained file with well-organized, clearly delimited sections (XML-tagged contract, Topology/Dispatch/Routing/Quality headers) and no bundle files to navigate. Scored 4 rather than 5 because the ~39-line dispatch template is inline where a reference file would keep the contract leaner, and the body exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception that would allow a 5 on organization alone. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |