Content
52%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 reasonably structured with a clear procedure, explicit validation gates, and a fail-fast rule, and it avoids explaining known concepts. Its serious weakness is progressive disclosure: almost every referenced path is broken and the single real bundle file is orphaned, which also undermines actionability since the skill directs the reader to load guides it cannot reach. Sections like "Use", "Philosophy", and the two pass write-ups overlap with the Procedure and could be consolidated.
Suggestions
Fix the reference graph: point the "Full Context" and "Subagent Routing" sections at files that actually exist in the bundle (e.g., references/context-preservation.md), remove or repair dead paths such as ./Infrastructure/references/contract.yaml and ../../../references/subagent-routing.md, and drop the ./assets marker since no assets directory exists.
Name the archived full guide explicitly (an actual file path the reader can open) instead of the vague "load the archived full guide" instruction, so the progressive-disclosure entry point is actionable.
Trim low-signal sections ("Use", "Philosophy") and fold the Domain Consistency Pass and Interface Design Pass sections into the corresponding Procedure steps to remove duplication; add one worked mini-example of the two-alternative interface comparison so the core deliverable is concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly operational directives with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the low-signal "Use" section ("Use this skill as normal for this Harness Engineering stage"), the abstract "Philosophy" bullets, and the Domain Consistency / Interface Design pass sections duplicating Procedure steps 2-5 add tokens that could be trimmed. This is anchor 3 (mostly efficient, some unnecessary or tighten-able content) rather than anchor 4's minor over-explanation. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Some guidance is genuinely concrete ("Generate at least two meaningfully different interface shapes, each with signature/call shape, caller usage example, what it hides internally, and tradeoffs"), but key execution details are missing: "load the archived full guide" never names a working file, most referenced paths are broken, and no template or worked example shows what deepened output looks like. This matches anchor 3's incomplete-but-present guidance rather than anchor 4's mostly-executable-with-minor-gaps. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step numbered procedure is elaborated by dedicated pass sections, with a Validation section containing explicit gates ("Block planning when a required interface shape is still unresolved") and fail-fast behavior ("stop at first failed gate and do not proceed"), matching anchor 4. It falls short of anchor 5 because the error-recovery loop is a bare stop directive without concrete fix-and-retry guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body points to roughly seven external files, and nearly all of them (./Infrastructure/references/contract.yaml, evals.yaml, task-profile.json, ../../../references/subagent-routing.md, domain-model-routing.md, routing-map.json, ./assets) do not exist in the bundle, while the one real reference file (references/context-preservation.md) is never linked from the body. Navigation to detail material is therefore largely broken, fitting anchor 2 (minimal working structure) rather than anchor 3's usable-but-imperfect references. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |