Content
65%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.
An efficient, well-organized orientation skill that maps the integration surface and defers depth to the research dossier. Its weakness is actionability and workflow clarity: beyond the quickstart smoke-check, the body tells Claude what the touchpoints are but not how to execute any of them.
Suggestions
Add a minimal numbered workflow for one touchpoint (e.g. the `BfldEvent → ToolOutput` shim) with the concrete file to edit and an executable validation step, so the body instructs rather than only describes.
Make the quickstart sequence explicit (activate → verify the MCP server spawned → run the smoke-check) with expected outputs, turning the implicit flow into checkpoints.
Move the version pin ("v0.1.0", "should return 0.1.0") into a version-compatibility note or keep only the command without pinning the expected output inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is table-driven and assumes domain competence — no padding explaining what BFLD, RVF, or cog agents are, and every section carries information. It falls short of 5 because of the inline time-sensitive version pin ("`@ruvnet/rvagent` v0.1.0… should return `0.1.0` (or newer)") which is not quarantined in a deprecated/changelog note. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The quickstart is concrete (MCP tool table, `RVAGENT_SENSING_URL` override, `npm view @ruvnet/rvagent version` smoke-check), but the bulk of the body — the three "shippable touchpoints", key surfaces, and open questions — is descriptive orientation with no concrete steps, commands, or code for executing any touchpoint. Not 4 because most guidance describes rather than instructs. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | There is a loose implicit sequence (activate plugin → tools spawn → smoke-check → consult dossier → land ADR-124 → scaffold), and the "Next decision" section gives ordering guidance, but no explicit numbered workflow exists and validation checkpoints beyond the single smoke-check are implicit. Not 2 because the pieces do convey a decipherable path with one explicit verification step. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-sectioned ~60-line overview with a single clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ("Full integration analysis lives at `docs/research/rvagent-rvf-integration/README.md`"), with detail appropriately deferred to it and to the ADR. No bundle files exist to inline, and no nested-reference chains are present. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |