Content
78%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.
A well-structured orchestrator body: lean directive prose, executable commands for its own scripts, explicit read-conditions for all bundle references, and measurable quality gates. Its main gaps are placeholder-laden commands that need substitution and a workflow sequence that is distributed across sections rather than stated as one ordered path.
Suggestions
Trim the generic agent-conduct sentences (working-style preamble, 'Report what you ran and what you saw') to tighten conciseness — they restate default behavior rather than adding Three.js-specific policy.
Add one concrete resolved example of the probe/create/inspect/check command chain with actual paths filled in, so the getting-started block is copy-paste ready without placeholder substitution.
Consolidate the build order (design brief → loop → assets → playable assessment → verification) into one short numbered sequence at the top, keeping the per-concern sections as detail.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense directive prose with zero tutorial content — no explanation of what Three.js is, how delegation works, or why verification matters; every section carries routing policy, thresholds, or commands. Not 5: several sentences of generic agent conduct ("Say in one sentence what you're about to do before your first tool call", "Report what you ran and what you saw") restate behavior Claude already defaults to and could be trimmed. Not 3: there is no padded or unnecessary explanation block anywhere. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, runnable commands are given for the key entry points — `bash <director-skill-dir>/scripts/probe_asset_credentials.sh`, `python3 .../scripts/create_threejs_game.py ./my-game`, `node .../scripts/inspect-threejs-canvas.mjs --manifest artifacts/evidence.json`, `check_evidence.py` — plus a phase-to-skill routing table and measurable thresholds ("no category below 2 and an average of at least 2.3"). Not 5: the commands require the user to resolve `<director-skill-dir>` and sibling skill-dir placeholders first, and the asset-generation and scorecard workflows defer entirely to sibling skills rather than giving copy-paste-ready invocations. Not 3: what is present is fully executable, not pseudocode. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear build sequence is present ("Start broad builds with the gameplay design brief, core-loop contract, and level plan... Launch useful asset jobs while implementing the loop, then assess a representative playable scene") with validation checkpoints — declare the capture set in `references/evidence-manifest.md`, run the evidence checker, "Repeat checks only after relevant changes", and error recovery routed to `references/asset-recovery.md`. Not 5: the sequence is dispersed across concern-based sections rather than a consolidated ordered workflow, and some checkpoints (exactly when to re-score versus re-verify) are left implicit to the sibling skills. Not 3: validation steps and failure-recovery paths are explicitly stated, not missing. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The SKILL.md is a pure overview: policy and commands inline, with all detail pushed to three real one-level-deep reference files (asset-recovery.md, evidence-manifest.md, workflow-evaluations.md — all present in references/ and none referencing further nested docs) and two scripts in scripts/, each signaled with an explicit read condition ("Read `references/asset-recovery.md` when sourcing external assets or recovering a job", "Before capturing, read `references/evidence-manifest.md`"). The routing table similarly points to each sibling SKILL.md. Navigation is unambiguous. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |