Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is well-structured, actionable, and workflow-clear with proper validation and error recovery. The main weakness is redundant duplication of the command blocks across steps 2 and 3.
Suggestions
Avoid restating the full bash blocks in step 3; reference the command built in step 2 instead to reduce token cost.
Optionally factor the base-branch validation snippet into a single reusable block rather than embedding it inline twice.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with no conceptual padding, but it duplicates the full bash command blocks verbatim in both step 2 ('Build the command') and step 3 ('Run the review in the background'), which could be tightened by referencing the earlier block. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, executable commands with exact flags ('roborev review --branch --wait --type design') and a copy-paste-ready validation snippet ('git rev-parse --verify -- "$branch"'), so the guidance is fully actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step sequence includes explicit validation ('If validation fails... Do not proceed') and error-recovery guidance (suggesting 'roborev status' / 'roborev init'), giving explicit checkpoints and a feedback loop. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, but the body is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (Usage, When NOT to invoke, Instructions, Examples, See also) with one-level references to sibling skills, satisfying the simple-skill allowance. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |