Content
72%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 maximally concise and appropriately self-contained for a simple skill, giving a clear three-beat sequence of map, fan out, and synthesize. Its weakness is executional depth: the agent must invent the actual mechanics — how to phrase sub-agent prompts, which angles to pick, and how to reconcile conflicting findings — leaving actionability and workflow clarity at the midpoint.
Suggestions
Add one concrete example of fanning out, e.g. a short list of sample angles (architecture, call-graph, data flow, error paths, tests, an unconventional angle like git history or config drift) so agents don't have to invent the division each time.
Include a brief synthesis checkpoint, such as "if agent findings conflict, spawn one follow-up agent to resolve the disagreement before writing the answer or plan", to close the workflow's missing validation loop.
Give minimal concrete guidance on sizing, e.g. "roughly 3-5 agents for a module, more for a subsystem", instead of the implicit "size the fan-out to the area".
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The two-sentence body is lean and efficient with zero padding: "Map the area of interest first (keywords, architecture), then fan out parallel agents, each exploring a distinct angle" assumes Claude's competence and explains nothing it already knows. Every token earns its place, matching anchor 5 exactly. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Some concrete guidance is present ("map first (keywords, architecture)", "including a few unconventional ones", "size the fan-out to the area", "write the plan in plan mode") but key executable details are missing: no example agent prompts, no sample angles to fan out over, and no method for dividing the area into angles. Not anchor 4 because an agent following only this must improvise the core mechanics; not anchor 2 because the directives go beyond high-level hints. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence exists (map area, then fan out agents, then use findings) but checkpoints are entirely implicit: no guidance on what to do when findings conflict, when coverage is insufficient, or how to converge multiple reports into one answer. This matches anchor 3 rather than 4, where checkpoints would be present with only minor gaps. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple, single-purpose skill well under 50 lines with no need for external references (and no bundle files exist), so per the rubric's simple-skill guideline it scores 5 on well-organized, self-contained content. The body is coherent and nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |