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.
The body is well-structured: concise imperative guidance, concrete commands, a gated validation workflow, and clean one-level-deep progressive disclosure with all references present. Main opportunity is tightening the densest nominal-phrase sections and converting a few policy statements into runnable steps.
Suggestions
Convert remaining policy statements (e.g. 'Narrow each role request to one primary surface before editing') into a concrete decision procedure or command so the guidance is fully runnable.
Tighten the Inputs and Execution Boundaries sections by merging overlapping constraints into a single checklist to reduce nominal-phrase density.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense imperative prose that assumes Claude's competence with no basic-concept padding; a few nominal-phrase-heavy sections could be trimmed to reach the lean 5-anchor ideal. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands ('./bin/ask skills audit ...', 'python3 ...validate_he_subagent_routing.py') and schema specifics (e.g. 'agents.max_depth >= 1'), though some guidance is policy-level rather than runnable, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Nine-step numbered workflow with explicit validation checkpoints ('Stop at the first failed gate, fix that failure class, and rerun it') and a feedback loop; appropriate validation for this repo-write skill. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Overview body points to one-level-deep references, all of which exist as real bundle files (role-creation-guide.md, role-config-examples.md, contract.yaml, evals.yaml, discovery-interview.md), with a clear References section for navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |