Content
73%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 well-structured orchestration recipe with an explicit flow diagram, exact per-invocation inputs, verdict routing, stop-point confirmations, and genuine review/fix/re-review feedback loops — workflow clarity is excellent. The main costs are token weight from rationale asides and a dense Step 6 paragraph, and reliance on external skills for key procedures (Review Resolution, convergence rules) that are named but not summarized. It comfortably clears all the bad-example patterns.
Suggestions
Trim the justificatory asides (e.g., "This independent discovery keeps scope... unverified implementation hypothesis") to at most a short parenthetical, since the constraint itself is already stated.
Break Step 6's single dense paragraph into a short numbered list separating verification, correction routing, rerun, and the verification_evidence assembly.
Add one-line entry conditions for the external procedures invoked by name (Review Resolution, requirement-convergence hearing) so the recipe remains executable if the companion skill's context is not fresh.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense procedural instruction with no teaching of concepts Claude already knows, but several justificatory asides ("This independent discovery keeps scope and option convergence grounded in repository evidence rather than the orchestrator's unverified implementation hypothesis", "instead of an orchestrator-authored shadow design") and long multi-clause sentences (the single-paragraph Step 6) could be tightened. This fits anchor 3 (mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation) better than anchor 4's 'only minor trimming needed'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps give field-level exact inputs for each invocation ("Invoke dev-workflows:codebase-analyzer ... prd_path: [approved PRD path]", "document_to_create: DesignDoc", "Operation Mode: update") and explicit verdict routing for pass/needs_revision/rejected — concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill. It is not a 5 because several steps defer to procedures defined elsewhere ("Apply Review Resolution", "Execute Skill: requirement-convergence") without restating even their entry conditions. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–7 are explicitly sequenced with a flow diagram, `[Stop]` checkpoints at every approval gate, and explicit feedback loops: needs_revision routes through Review Resolution into a fresh update invocation and re-review with prior_feedback, and code-verifier is rerun after each correction with prior_feedback. This matches anchor 5 (clear sequence, explicit validation steps, feedback loops) with no missing checkpoints. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No local bundle exists, and the body is well-sectioned (Outcome and Ownership, Flow, Steps 1–7, Completion Criteria) with cross-skill file references clearly attributed to their owning skills ("read references/review-resolution.md from the loaded subagents-orchestration-guide skill", "references/criteria.md of the requirement-convergence skill"), so no references dangle. It is not a 5 because at ~127 lines some dense procedural detail (e.g., Step 6's correction/rerun protocol) reads like material that could be split into a one-level-deep reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |