Content
77%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-sequenced, validation-rich orchestration workflow with concrete invocation templates, but it is a long monolithic document with limited progressive disclosure and a couple of minor serialization gaps.
Suggestions
Move the verbose prompt templates and the report-format blocks into a reference file (e.g., references/invocation-templates.md), keeping SKILL.md a lean overview with one-level-deep links.
Explicitly serialize non-prompt fields like direct_scope, governing_sources, target_paths, and observable_verification into the task-executor-frontend prompt so each invocation is fully copy-paste ready.
Create the local references/ directory referenced in the body (e.g., a short review-resolution.md summary) so referenced paths resolve to real bundle files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, procedural, and free of concept exposition Claude already knows; minor restatement of gates and repeated 'Review Resolution Gate' invocations keep it just below fully lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete Agent-tool invocations with exact subagent_type, description, and prompt strings plus a routing table give mostly executable guidance, though a few fields (e.g., direct_scope) lack explicit serialization into the prompt. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-10 are explicitly sequenced with branching conditions, validation checkpoints (Review Resolution Gate, convergence conditions), re-validation, and a retry-once feedback loop — satisfying the destructive/batch feedback-loop requirement. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The recipe is a ~215-line monolithic procedural document with only one external reference (into another skill) and no bundle-file split, so it has structure but is largely inline rather than well-split across files. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |