Content
82%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 highly actionable, well-sequenced operational procedure with copy-paste commands, decision tables, and a precise output format. Its weaknesses are modest: some trimmable prose (the agent-description paragraph, repeated prohibitions), missing success-verification for the checkout/stash-pop steps, and no offloading of reference-shaped material to bundle files.
Suggestions
Trim Step 6's description of the code-reviewer agent's methods ('reads every changed file cold, traces code paths...') — the agent already knows its own procedure; keep only what the dispatcher must pass it.
Add explicit verification after the state-changing steps: confirm the checkout succeeded before gathering context, and confirm git stash pop succeeded in Step 8 (with a recovery hint for conflicts) to close the workflow-clarity validation gap.
State the review's substantive scope once (e.g., bugs, regressions, claims-vs-implementation) at the top or in the agent dispatch prompt, so 'deep review' has a concrete criterion and the description's minor specificity gap is closed in the body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean — terse rules ('Never use gh pr diff — API diffs can be inaccurate') and copy-paste commands — but a few trimmable spots: Step 6 restates the code-reviewer agent's own behavior ('reads every changed file cold, traces code paths, re-derives claims by running them, sweeps for debug code'), and the CRITICAL section states the no-posting prohibition three different ways. Efficient with minor over-explanation, not the fully lean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable throughout: exact GH_TOKEN-wrapped gh/git commands, a ref-format parsing table, verbatim one-line announcements and handoff lines, and a precisely specified copyable findings format including the suggestion-block convention. Covers the common cases copy-paste ready. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–8 are clearly sequenced with real checkpoints: the authorship gate with a pr-feedback handoff table (Step 2), stash tracking ('check if $STASH_RESULT contains No local changes'), and mandatory restore 'even if the review encounters errors'. Minor validation gaps — no verification that checkout or git stash pop succeeded — keep it below the explicit-feedback-loop anchor of 5, but checkpoints are present and explicit, so it clears the 3 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the body is a single ~210-line linear procedure with clean per-step headers, and it deliberately delegates rather than duplicates ('The review criteria and output discipline live in the agent — don't restate them here'). Good structure and appropriate placement for a sequential workflow, though some reference-shaped material (the findings output spec, ref-parsing table) is inline and the skill exceeds the under-50-lines simple-skill case, so it is not the exemplary 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |