Content
70%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 body is operationally excellent: tool calls, commands, decision gates, and failure handling are specified to an unusually executable degree, and the workflow sequencing with fail-closed validation is a model of clarity. Its weakness is token efficiency — enormous run-on paragraphs with repeated conditions and inlined policy detail that belongs in reference files, which also holds back progressive disclosure since the bundle has no references of its own.
Suggestions
Split the step-4 test-report comment template and the factory_review_source cross-check procedure into reference files (e.g. references/test-report-format.md, references/identity-cross-check.md) and keep a short summary inline, reducing the monolithic ~18KB body.
Break the review-pass steps into sub-steps or bullet lists and de-duplicate the three separate statements of environment-failure policy into a single rule.
Move internal implementation citations (gitlab/rules.ts:481, gitlab/routes.ts:94, session/source-control-tools.ts) into a reference note; they explain why the rule exists but are not needed to execute the pass.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Step 4 of the review pass is a single ~900-word paragraph, environment-failure handling is stated three times ('If a preparation step fails, fix it with a narrower build', 'An environment failure is not a pass', 'If it still cannot run, publish neutral'), and implementation minutiae like 'gitlab/rules.ts:481' and the full test-report template are inlined. This is noticeably verbose with repeated conditions, matching anchor 2 rather than 3, though it never pads with concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | The body gives fully executable guidance: named tool calls with exact parameter values ('source_control_publish_test_check' with 'in-progress/success/failure/neutral/cancelled'), runnable commands ('env -u GH_TOKEN -u GITHUB_TOKEN -u GITLAB_TOKEN -u GITLAB_ACCESS_TOKEN', 'pnpm turbo build --filter <pkg>^...', 'git status --porcelain'), and a line-by-line MR comment template. Placeholders like <pkg> are legitimately parameterized, so this meets the copy-paste-ready anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A numbered 5-step review pass with explicit validation gates (the approval checklist requiring 'affirmative evidence that the checkout equals the current MR head'), feedback loops ('Re-read the MR ... once and re-run this cross-check', 'refresh and re-run the review gates'), and fail-closed handling for every failure mode (mismatch, stale commitId, moved head, publication failure). This matches the anchor with explicit checkpoints and error-recovery loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body has real section headers (Security and scope, Review pass, Verdict and handoff) and one clearly signaled external reference ('read references/categories/README.md from the factory-review skill'), but no bundle files exist and heavy material — the test-report comment format, the factory_review_source cross-check procedure, and internal file/line citations — is inlined where reference files belong. This fits anchor 3 (structure present, content that should be separate is inline) rather than 2, since headers and a signaled reference exist. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |