Content
68%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 highly actionable, correctly sequenced orchestration protocol with exact prompts, commands, and output templates. Its weaknesses are the missing verification loop around the destructive apply-and-commit step, and noticeable duplication (Notes section, triple Task blocks, repeated completion protocol) that inflates token cost without adding information.
Suggestions
Add a post-edit verification step before committing — e.g., re-read each edited section or review `git diff` and confirm unrelated content is preserved — since destructive batch fix application without verification caps workflow clarity at 3.
Cut duplication: drop or merge the Notes section into the phases it restates, collapse the three identical Task() blocks into a single example plus a 'spawn 3 with identical prompts' instruction, and keep the completion protocol or Phase 3f, not both.
Make the expert-invocation step concrete — specify the actual tool call for invoking an `expert-*` skill rather than the vague `skill: "expert-*"` notation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly operational detail Claude could not infer (dispatcher contract, consensus thresholds, sentinel protocol), but there is real tightening opportunity: the Notes section restates phase content ('Always 3 subagents', 'Model: opus', 'Consensus = confidence'), the completion protocol in the Invocation Contract duplicates Phase 3f's bash block, and the three near-identical Task() blocks repeat one instruction. This fits anchor 3 (mostly efficient, some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened) rather than anchor 4's 'minor instances'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable throughout: the verbatim subagent validation prompt, exact bash for commit/push/touch of the sentinel, a copy-paste validation-log.md template, concrete file paths, and the exact discovery command `ls .claude/skills/ | grep expert`. Placeholders like <feature> and [path] have explicit insertion instructions, matching the 5 anchor's copy-paste-ready coverage of common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clearly ordered (numbered completion protocol, Phases 1-3 with subsections 3a-3f, idempotency and crash-mid-write handling) and findings are gated by the consensus filter. However, the destructive batch application — auto-editing spec files, committing, and pushing with no HITL — has no verification of the applied edits (no diff review, re-read, or re-validation before the sentinel), and the rubric explicitly caps destructive/batch workflows lacking validation/verification at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent) and the skill is well-sectioned (Invocation Contract, Phases 1-3, Notes) with everything the protocol needs inline at one level; nothing is buried or nested. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because at ~250 lines there are minor organization gaps (redundant Notes/completion-protocol duplication) and the 5 anchor's cleanly split, well-signaled reference structure is not demonstrated. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |