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 body is a well-structured, highly actionable orchestration recipe with strong workflow sequencing, explicit validation checkpoints, and feedback loops. Its main weakness is heavy reliance on external skills for the actual execution detail, which leaves minor actionability gaps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and procedural, assuming Claude's competence without explaining basic concepts, with only minor redundancy in the repeated MANDATORY/CRITICAL emphasis lines that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It names exact subagent_type strings, fields to pass (task_file, diffBase, mutationEvidence, qualityCommand), and status-based routing rules, but execution details are delegated to external skill flows rather than being self-contained, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-step per-task cycle is explicitly sequenced with status checkpoints, feedback loops ('needs_revision → return to step 1'), mandatory Stop markers, a pre-execution checklist, and a Review Resolution Gate for error recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is organized into well-signaled sections (Orchestrator Definition, Decision Flow, 4-Step Cycle) with clearly named external skill references ('Execute Skill: ...'), though no bundle reference files exist in this skill and all detail is inlined into one file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |