Content
81%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 a concise, actionable, well-sequenced instruction for dispatching a code-reviewer subagent, with clean sectioning and a single clearly signaled reference. The only notable gaps are minor redundancy between sections and no explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and sectioned with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, though the Example re-derives git SHAs and the Integration section partially restates When to Request, leaving minor instances that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives executable bash commands, a named subagent type, an explicit placeholder list, and a template pointer, with only a minor gap that the template content itself is not inline. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered 1-2-3 sequence (get SHAs, dispatch, act on feedback) is clear with prioritized feedback handling as an implicit recovery path; it lacks an explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoint, but the operation is neither destructive nor batch so no cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At well under 50 lines with no external material needed, the content is cleanly sectioned and the single one-level-deep reference to code-reviewer.md is signaled twice, meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |