Content
81%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 well-structured orchestration recipe with highly actionable, concrete subagent invocations and an exceptionally clear validated workflow including feedback loops. It is token-efficient and avoids over-explanation, with only slight room to tighten repeated gating language.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, procedural, and assumes Claude's competence without re-explaining basic concepts, though the repeated gating language (Local authority gate, Review Resolution Gate, response gates) could be tightened slightly. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance is strong: exact subagent_type values, field-by-field prompt construction, literal prompt templates, and a commit message format, though some fields remain placeholders like '[confirmed changed integration/E2E test paths]'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequence carries explicit validation checkpoints (response gates, quality-fixer statuses) and feedback loops (Step 5 re-review, Step 6 stub_detected returning to Step 3), matching the top anchor for error recovery and checklists. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-organized into headed sections and ordered steps with one-level cross-skill pointers (references/review-resolution.md), and no bundle files exist to require splitting; only minor inlining of detailed prompt construction keeps it from a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |