Content
61%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 a compact, well-structured overview that delegates detail to bundled reference files — good progressive disclosure and reasonable token efficiency. Its weaknesses are inconsistent/ambiguous file paths, a missing referenced audit file, and an implicit rather than explicit workflow sequence with scattered validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Resolve the broken reference: `audits/review-cost-circuit-breaker.md` is cited but absent from references/audits/ — either add the file or point to an existing audit (e.g. decile-anchors.md / mcp-tool-description-budget.md) if it covers budget circuit-breaking.
Use consistent, fully-qualified bundle paths for every "load" instruction (e.g. `assets/pr-review-template.md` rather than the bare `pr-review-template.md`) so the guidance is directly executable.
Re-express the review flow as a short numbered sequence (sweep → audit gate → Round 1 template → Round 2 disposition → budget check) with explicit validation checkpoints, instead of prose with inline conditional clauses.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and does not explain concepts Claude already knows — it jumps straight to gates, sweeps, and template loads — matching anchor 4's "efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed"; held below 5 because dense unexplained acronyms (V-B-A, A+FU, D+S, RC, §0/§10/§6.4) spend tokens on shorthand that does not fully earn its place for an unprimed reader. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete pointers ("use the `view_file` tool", "run a 3–10-call `query_raw_memories` / `query_summaries` sweep", "load pr-review-template.md") but key details are missing: template files are referenced by bare name without the `assets/` path, pathing is inconsistent with the guide reference, and `audits/review-cost-circuit-breaker.md` is referenced but does not exist in the bundle — matching anchor 3's "some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details". | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence is present (prior-art sweep → instrument audit → Round 1 template → Round 2 → budget/disposition) but it is prose with conditional branches rather than a clearly numbered flow, and validation checkpoints ("The sweep RESULT is the V-B-A; CI-green ≠ AC-met") are implicit and scattered, matching anchor 3's "sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit". | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md acts as an overview pointing to one-level-deep references (guide, instrument-audit, four templates, a cost audit) that are clearly signaled with "load"; the bundle is well split across references/ and assets/, matching anchor 4's "good structure; references mostly clear; minor organization gaps" — held below 5 by the broken `review-cost-circuit-breaker.md` reference and inconsistent path prefixes. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |