Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-structured and actionable with concrete commands and a clear schema, but suffers from verbosity (repeated canonical-contract restatements) and missing validation checkpoints in its destructive apply/rollback workflow.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation/verification steps to the Approve and Rollback flows (e.g. confirm the snapshot exists and re-run 'moai harness status' after apply).
Remove the duplicated '[HARD]' canonical-contract paragraphs — state the orchestrator/AskUserQuestion boundary once and reference it.
Trim or move the large auto-generated annotation comment to a separate notes reference to reduce token overhead.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but padded with a long auto-generated annotation comment and repeated '[HARD]' canonical-contract restatements of the orchestrator/AskUserQuestion boundary across multiple sections. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands ('moai harness status/apply/rollback'), a fully specified payload schema with field definitions, and copy-ready rollback/disable examples. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (Quick Reference + Steps 1-5), but destructive/batch operations (apply auto-update, delete proposal file, rollback) lack explicit validation or verification checkpoints, capping the score at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single-file skill with well-organized sections (Quick Reference, Implementation Guide, Safety Architecture Reference) and clear navigation; no nested references requiring deeper traversal. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |