Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-sequenced review skill with strong workflow clarity and clear validation checkpoints. The main weakness is progressive disclosure: the References section lists many paths that are not present in the actual bundle, and several 'Read when' cues are detached from the files they describe.
Suggestions
Reconcile the References section with the actual bundle: remove or fix non-existent paths (./Infrastructure/references/contract.yaml, ./finding.md.tmpl, ./assets/icon-*.png) and keep only files that resolve, such as ./references/context-preservation.md.
Attach each 'Read when:' cue directly to the reference line it describes instead of leaving three bare triggers floating after the reference list.
Add one concrete inline finding example (severity, location, impact, minimal fix, confidence) to lift actionability from directive-style to copy-paste-ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean throughout — short bulleted sections (Philosophy, When To Use, Inputs, Outputs, Procedure, Validation, Constraints, Anti-Patterns) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and every section earns its tokens. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance is specific and concrete (severity levels P0-P3, output fields like location/impact/minimal fix/confidence, distinct feedback_response_plan values), but the Procedure steps are high-level directives ('Review with repo-first evidence and deduplicate findings', 'compare reported behavior... before accepting') rather than precise executable instruction, and no example of a finding is shown inline. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Procedure is a clearly numbered 6-step sequence with an explicit Validation section serving as checkpoints ('Fail fast: stop at first blocking prerequisite or failed validation gate'), plus a feedback loop for QA reports (compare reported vs expected vs proposed-fix evidence before accepting) and routing-elsewhere guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is well-organized with a clear overview and a References section pointing to deeper materials, but the references are unevenly signaled and point to paths that do not exist in this bundle (e.g. ./Infrastructure/references/contract.yaml, ./finding.md.tmpl, ./assets/*) while only ./references/context-preservation.md is actually present, and several bare 'Read when:' lines are detached from their reference targets. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |