Content
67%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 skill is well-structured and concise with explicit validation and handoff checkpoints, plus a clean set of one-level references that all resolve. The main gap is actionability: it describes what to produce and classify but gives no concrete command, template, or schema example to execute against.
Suggestions
Add a minimal stage-result artifact template or a one-line schema example so the deliverable is copy-paste concrete rather than just enumerated fields.
Show the exact local check command(s) the Validation section refers to (e.g., the specific plugin validation / SDK proof command) instead of describing them generically.
Specify how a lane is classified as fail vs blocked with a one-line decision rule, making the validation checkpoint fully actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no concept over-explanation and each section earns its place, though a few procedural lines (e.g., "Perform only the work owned by tracker-plan") are slightly abstract and could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete deliverable fields (schema_version, stage, status, evidence_refs, blocked_by, next_stage) and exact status values are specified, but the guidance stays high-level with no executable commands or templates to copy. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A numbered procedure pairs with an explicit "Fail fast" validation checkpoint that stops at the first failed gate and names the recovery handoff, leaving only minor gap in how a lane is re-checked. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear References section signals four real one-level-deep bundle files (contract, evals, task-profile, source-context) and keeps the body appropriately split, with only minor inline mentions of sibling stages. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |