Content
92%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a high-quality skill with excellent conciseness, actionability, and workflow clarity. The structured tables, concrete code examples, explicit escalation paths, and anti-patterns section make it immediately usable. The only weakness is the reference to REFERENCE.md which isn't provided in the bundle, though the skill body itself is well-organized and self-contained enough to be functional.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every section is lean and purposeful. Tables, bullet lists, and short code snippets convey maximum information with minimal tokens. No unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides executable JS snippet for spawning the reviewer, a concrete verdict format to parse, a specific CLI logging command, and clear auto-PASS criteria with explicit thresholds (≤10 lines, ≤2 files). The guidance is specific and copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 4-step numbered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (verdict parsing, hard gate for logging). Includes a retry/escalation feedback loop (≤2 retries → panel review → dispute), sensitive override rules, and a structured outcome table for handling each verdict case. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References REFERENCE.md for the full reviewer prompt template and team-lead-reference for dispute protocol, which is good structure. However, REFERENCE.md is not provided in the bundle, making it impossible to verify the reference exists. The skill itself is well-organized with clear sections but the missing bundle file slightly undermines the progressive disclosure claim. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |