Content
73%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 itself is excellent: an unusually disciplined workflow with explicit conditions, validation loops, approval gates, and anti-drift rules, written with high token efficiency. The score is dragged down by the bundle: the templates/ and prompts/ files the entire workflow pivots on are missing, leaving the reference structure broken in practice.
Suggestions
Ship the templates/ and prompts/ files referenced throughout the workflow (case.md, report.md, issue.md, bundle-README.md, analyst-common.md, the seven dimension files, scrub.md, scrub-audit.md, similar-session.md), or inline minimal versions of the critical ones so the workflow is executable as bundled.
Either reference references/redaction-policy.md from the body (it is the natural place for the redaction levels in step 6) or remove it, so every file in references/ is discoverable from SKILL.md.
Consolidate the overlap between the Hard Rules section and the Red Flags table — several rows restate the same rule (reconstructed statements, unprompted bundles) and could merge into one location.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes competence — no concept explanations, no padding, with specifics like "One transcript line can be a megabyte" and "gh cannot attach files" earning their tokens. It falls short of 5 because the Red Flags table restates several Hard rules almost verbatim (e.g., reconstructing the partner's statement away, and building the bundle only when asked), which could be consolidated. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is highly concrete: exact file paths ("~/.superpowers/diagnosing-superpowers/<session-id>/"), commands ("zip -r" / "tar -czf"), named analyst dimension files, and explicit approval gates. It is not a 5 because many of the executable artifacts it depends on (templates/case.md, templates/report.md, prompts/analyst-common.md, prompts/scrub.md, etc.) are referenced but absent from the bundle, so the workflow cannot actually be executed as shipped. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven steps are clearly sequenced with explicit conditional execution ("Steps 5–7 run only on their stated condition"), and validation is built in throughout: findings without path:line are discarded, the scrub/audit loop repeats "until the audit returns CLEAN", and hard approval gates precede archiving and issue creation. This matches the anchor with feedback loops and checkpoints for a complex process. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The in-body structure is well designed — a lean overview pointing one level deep to references/, templates/, and prompts/ — but scored against the actual bundle, 11+ of the referenced paths (all of templates/ and prompts/) do not exist, and references/redaction-policy.md exists yet is never referenced in the body. Navigation fails for most pointers, which is worse than the minor organization gaps of a 3. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |