Content
85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is highly actionable with executable commands and a clearly sequenced, validated workflow including error-recovery guidance. Its only weakness is moderate verbosity from a duplicated command block and some meta-commentary that could be trimmed.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely action-oriented and assumes Claude's competence, but the commit-specified command block is duplicated across "Build the command" and "Run the review in the background", and meta-commentary like "These instructions are guidelines, not a rigid script" is mild padding. It is efficient but could be tightened, matching the middle anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides fully executable commands (the roborev review invocation, git rev-parse validation heredoc, Task tool with subagent_type Bash) and concrete examples with real job ids (1042, 1043). This matches the copy-paste-ready, fully-executable anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Five steps are clearly sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint in step 1 (ref invalid => stop) and an error-recovery feedback loop in step 4 (report errors, suggest roborev status/init/re-run). This matches the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, so there is no nested-reference risk; the single file is well-organized into clearly labeled sections (Usage, Instructions, Examples, See also) with a one-level See-also pointer to sibling skills. This matches the well-organized, easy-navigation anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |