Content
78%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 content is a lean, well-structured workflow router with concrete paths, commands, and interface contracts, and excellent progressive disclosure through its specification routing table. Its main gaps are minor: an absent failure-recovery loop after validation and slight overlap between the feedback-related sections.
Suggestions
Add one line to the validation section covering failure handling, e.g. 'If a check fails, fix and re-run it before proceeding' to close the feedback loop.
Merge the overlapping guidance in sections 6 and 7 (both cover where feedback/learnings belong) into a single section.
Name the specific specialist skills to invoke (accessibility, design, etc.) if they have stable names, replacing the vague 'applicable specialist skill'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, directive, and assumes competence — every bullet states a rule, path, or command with no concept explanations. It falls just short of anchor 5 because sections 6 and 7 overlap on feedback handling and some phrasing ('represent shared capability, not Sessions-specific policy') could be tightened. It is well above anchor 3 since there is no padding or over-explanation. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable: exact file paths ('browser/menus.ts', 'sessions.*.main.ts'), a runnable command ('npm run valid-layers-check'), named contracts ('ISessionsManagementService', 'ISession', 'IChat'), and a routing table of specifications. It is not a 5 because a few directives remain vague ('invoke the applicable accessibility... skill') and no example of applying the principles is given; it clearly exceeds anchor 3 since no pseudocode or hand-waving fills the gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The seven numbered sections give a clear sequence — principles, identify owning area, inspect, implement, validate proportionally, record feedback, maintain — with an explicit validation step naming the smallest checks to run. It misses anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery loop (what to do when 'valid-layers-check' or tests fail), and it is above anchor 3 because validation checkpoints are explicit and concrete rather than implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is itself a router: a start point ('src/vs/sessions/README.md'), a table mapping each concern to exactly one one-level-deep specification file, a search-before-read rule for the learning inbox, and per-section pointers to specialist skills. No bundle files exist alongside the skill, so structure is judged on the body itself, which matches 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; easy navigation'. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |