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.
The body is maximally lean and its single dispatch action is concrete and unambiguous, naming the exact agents to invoke. Its weakness is incompleteness rather than verbosity: it never says what the reviewers should examine or how their parallel feedback should be synthesized into an answer.
Suggestions
Add a brief step for synthesizing results, e.g. 'After all reviews complete, combine findings into a single list of issues sorted by severity.'
Give each reviewer agent a one-line focus (e.g. what the Rails reviewers vs. the simplicity reviewer should look for) so the dispatch is fully specified.
Clarify what 'this plan' refers to (the plan currently under discussion) and what output format the user should receive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is two lines with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The instruction is concrete (three named agents, in parallel, targeting 'this plan'), but key details are missing — no guidance on what each reviewer should focus on or how to combine their outputs — matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The single dispatch action is unambiguous and the simple-skill exception applies, but the post-review step (aggregating three agents' feedback into a result) is an unspecified gap, placing it just below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, no bundle files exist, and no external references are needed; the minimal structure (heading plus one instruction) is appropriate for a skill of this size, so the simple-skill guideline permits a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |