Content
92%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.
A tightly written, well-structured review workflow with explicit validation and feedback loops and excellent token efficiency. The only gap is that two fallback paths (git diff, comment posting) are named abstractly instead of given as executable commands.
Suggestions
Add the concrete git diff fallback command (e.g., the exact `git diff` invocation against the merge base plus uncommitted changes) instead of only naming it.
Specify the exact `gh` comment-posting command (or the PR comment tool invocation) so the comment step is copy-paste ready, not just 'otherwise use gh'.
Optionally show the concrete subagent prompt skeleton or role names used for the parallel reviewers so the 'independent reviewers in parallel' step is fully reproducible.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | A lean ~40-line body that assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of diffs, PRs, or subagents); every line carries concrete instruction with no padding. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a copy-paste-ready gh command, specific policy file paths, and concrete precedence rules, but the git-diff fallback and comment-posting mechanics are described abstractly rather than with executable commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five clearly sequenced steps with an explicit validation checkpoint (Step 4) including reject-logic feedback and a terminal 'if nothing survives validation, say so' rule, satisfying the batch-operation validation requirement. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references; content is cleanly organized into a Workflow section and Fallbacks section, meeting the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |