Content
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a reasonable framework for routing plugin-factory requests with clear safety boundaries and constraints, but falls short on actionability by not showing concrete input→output examples of routing decisions. The content is moderately concise but has redundancy across sections (especially around the 'do not execute' constraint repeated in multiple places). The workflow would benefit from an explicit numbered decision sequence rather than relying heavily on external reference files.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 concrete input/output examples showing a user request mapped to a specific lane selection with the expected structured output (lane, rationale, next command).
Consolidate the overlapping 'Execution Boundaries', 'Constraints', and 'Gotchas' sections into a single 'Boundaries & Constraints' section to reduce redundancy.
Replace the implicit workflow with an explicit numbered decision sequence: 1. Parse request → 2. Check required inputs → 3. Apply First-Principles Gate → 4. Select lane → 5. Validate selection → 6. Return handoff.
Provide at least one complete structured output example showing the schema_version, selected lane, rationale, and next command fields populated with realistic values.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is moderately efficient but includes some redundancy—'Execution Boundaries' and 'Constraints' overlap significantly, and several sections restate the 'do not execute from router' rule. The 'Philosophy' and 'When to use' sections partially duplicate the description. Some jargon ('context-disposition policy', 'projection determinism') is used without clear payoff. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides structured guidance on what to output (lane selection, rationale, next command) and clear failure-mode handling, but lacks concrete executable examples of actual routing decisions with input/output pairs. The 'Examples' section lists scenario descriptions but doesn't show the expected structured output for any of them. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is partially clear—there's a fail-fast validation step and a reference to workflow.md for the route map—but the actual routing decision sequence is not explicitly laid out as numbered steps with checkpoints. The 'First-Principles Gate' and 'Plugin design checkpoint' are mentioned but not sequenced into a clear step-by-step flow. The validation script is provided but the overall multi-step process relies on an external file. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are clearly listed and one-level deep, which is good. However, no bundle files were provided, so we cannot verify the referenced paths exist. The main body contains substantial inline content that could be better organized—the design contract details and anti-patterns could potentially live in reference files. The references section is well-structured but the body itself is somewhat monolithic. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |