Content
70%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, clearly sequenced read-only lookup router with explicit decision checkpoints and good section organization. Its main weakness is conciseness — the removal-routing message is repeated three times — and a lack of concrete example output/table rendering that would make guidance fully copy-paste ready.
Suggestions
Define the 'safe to remove' routing message once (e.g. in Scope Boundary) and reference it from Step 3 and the routing table instead of repeating it verbatim three times, cutting roughly a third of the body.
Add a short concrete example of the summary table output (rendered markdown) and an example `list-flags`/`get-flag` invocation so the guidance is copy-paste ready.
Trim the enforcement prose ('That's it. No analysis. No bullet points. No verdict. … answered by the routing message, not by you.') to a single decisive instruction.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence (no 'what is a flag' filler), but the 'safe to remove' routing message is repeated ~verbatim three times and enforcement prose ('That's it. No analysis. No bullet points. No verdict.') is padding. Not a 3 because of this redundancy; not a 1 because it does not explain concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance is present — named MCP tools (`list-flags`, `get-flag`), command forms, `production` default, summary fields, and a routing table with links — but no rendered example of the summary table output and no example MCP tool-call syntax, leaving key details implicit. Not a 3 because it is not copy-paste ready; not a 1 because guidance is specific rather than abstract. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 4-step workflow (Parse → Resolve → Return summary → Route) with explicit decision checkpoints for each resolution branch (no query / one match / multiple matches / no matches). Not a 2 because checkpoints are explicit, not implicit; the destructive-operation cap does not apply to this read-only lookup. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the single SKILL.md is organized into well-labeled sections (Scope Boundary, Prerequisites, Command Contract, Workflow, Output Style, Important Context) with no nested references and easy navigation. Not a 2 because content is appropriately contained for a single-purpose router skill rather than needing to be split out. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |