Content
82%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 concise, well-structured orchestration procedure with concrete executable references and an explicit fallback checkpoint. Its main gap is that the side-assignment and synthesis steps are described rather than given as directly executable commands, and no validation retry loop is specified for the provider check.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validate-and-retry loop for the provider check (e.g., re-run check-providers.sh or surface the failure before proceeding) to fully satisfy the destructive/batch validation expectation.
Make the 'Assign sides' and 'Synthesize' steps more copy-paste ready, for instance by giving an example motion and side-assignment payload passed to /octo:debate.
If cost-band details are substantial, move them to a referenced file (e.g., a CLAUDE.md cost table pointer) to strengthen progressive disclosure signaling.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no preamble explaining what a debate or provider is, every line is actionable instruction, and tokens are spent only on guidance Claude would not already know (the helper script path, cost guardrail). | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable guidance like the helper script path `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/helpers/check-providers.sh` and the explicit `/octo:debate` invocation, but the 'Assign sides' and 'Synthesize' steps are procedural descriptions rather than copy-paste-ready commands, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step sequence is clearly ordered with an explicit gating checkpoint ('if only Claude is available, say so and offer a single-model pro/con instead') and a failure-handling guardrail ('If a seat fails, report the failure and continue'), but there is no explicit validate-then-retry loop for the seat check itself, leaving a minor validation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear section headers (When to use, Steps, Guardrails) and an inline one-level-deep reference to a helper script; no bundle files are present, so structure is appropriate for a short overview, though it lacks the clearly-signaled separate reference files that would earn a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |