Content
85%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 tightly written, highly actionable orchestration workflow with excellent validation checkpoints and feedback loops. Its one material defect is that step 4c's pivotal reference to `adversarial-review.md` dangles — the file is not shipped in the bundle — and its main efficiency cost is thrice-repeated findings-routing bullets.
Suggestions
Ship `adversarial-review.md` in the skill directory (or inline its contents) — step 4c directs the reader to its full contents and the workflow cannot be executed as written without it.
Factor the findings-routing bullets repeated verbatim in 4c, 4d, and Step 5 into a single shared rule (e.g. one 'How findings route' section) to reclaim ~10 lines of token budget.
Consider the same for the twice-stated 'it's a skill, not an agent to dispatch' clarification for `team-review` in 4d and Step 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — no gh/git/GitHub basics are explained, and every section carries operational instruction. However, the findings-routing bullets ('Code findings → back to the implementer via SendMessage. All of them, no cherry-picking...' / 'Claims findings → to Josh...') appear nearly verbatim three times (4c, 4d, Step 5), and 'it's a skill, not an agent to dispatch' is repeated twice — minor repetition that could be factored into one shared rule. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance throughout: a complete graphql subIssues query, copy-paste `gh` commands, git branching/commit/SHA commands, a verbatim implementer dispatch-message template, worked ref-parsing examples, and fallbacks for empty $ARGUMENTS and unresolvable refs. Common cases are covered concretely. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–5 with a clearly sequenced per-issue loop (4a–4f), explicit validation checkpoints (scrutinizer pass, code-review gate, 'Tests failing means the issue isn't done', per-issue sign-off before commit, whole-branch gate), feedback loops (blocked → ask Josh → resume via SendMessage; changes requested → back through 4c/4d), and a closing Rules checklist. This batch operation has validation everywhere, so the missing-validation cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and the single external reference is clearly signaled and one level deep, but that reference — 'the full contents of `adversarial-review.md` in this skill's directory' (step 4c) — points to a file absent from the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist). Navigation fails at a critical step of the workflow. Not 2, since content is not inlined into a monolith and the split itself is appropriate; not 4, because a dangling reference is more than a minor organization gap. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |