Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill is actionable and well-sequenced with a clear review workflow and feedback handling, but it is slightly verbose in places and references a template file that is missing from the bundle.
Suggestions
Provide the referenced code-reviewer.md template (e.g. in references/) so the dispatch step is self-contained and the bundle matches the body.
Trim overlap between 'When to Request Review', the Example, and 'Integration with Workflows' to reduce redundancy.
Replace the example's fragile 'git log | grep Task 1 | awk' SHA lookup with a more robust method (e.g. a documented tag or explicit BASE_SHA).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and assumes Claude's competence, but the Example and 'Integration with Workflows' sections restate triggers already covered in 'When to Request Review', so it could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-paste-ready commands ('git rev-parse HEAD~1', 'git rev-parse HEAD'), named tool/type ('Task tool with general-purpose type'), and a referenced template with defined placeholders give fully executable guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear three-step sequence (get SHAs, dispatch, act on feedback) with an explicit triage checkpoint for Critical/Important/Minor issues and a push-back path provides a strong feedback loop. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body signals a one-level-deep reference ('code-reviewer.md') clearly, but no references/ directory or template file exists in the bundle, so the referenced material is absent and organization cannot be fully validated. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |