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 tightly written, highly actionable orchestration workflow with an exemplary validation structure — conditional branching, feedback loops, and convergence conditions are all explicit. Its main weaknesses are minor: a few over-long sentences, and Steps 6-7 defining agent inputs as field lists rather than copy-paste-ready prompts.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, procedural, and free of padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows, with only minor over-elaboration (e.g. the long implementationFiles derivation sentence in Step 1 and Step 4's route-mapping paragraph) that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Nearly everything is executable: exact subagent_type values ("dev-workflows:code-reviewer"), literal description strings, prompt templates with a defined mechanical-extraction rule, and report templates in code blocks; Steps 6-7 specify inputs as field lists rather than literal prompt text, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-9 are explicitly ordered with conditional branches ("Run this step only when the user routed at least one finding to `d`"), explicit validation checkpoints (Review Resolution Gate, quality-fixer routing with pass/stub_detected/verification_incomplete/blocked), feedback loops (Step 6-7 retry, Step 8 reconciliation, one-retry rule), and declared convergence conditions. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good section structure (Orchestrator Definition, Execution Method, Execution Flow), and the one external reference (references/review-resolution.md in subagents-orchestration-guide) is one level deep and clearly signaled with when to read it; no local bundle exists, and minor inline material (routing table, report templates) could arguably move to reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |