Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-sequenced, highly actionable investigation workflow with explicit validation gates and clean self-contained organization. The main weakness is minor token padding from a redundant intro and repeated platform-portability caveats.
Suggestions
Delete the opening "A framework-agnostic, hypothesis-driven workflow..." paragraph since it restates the description.
Consolidate the repeated Claude Code / Codex / Gemini question-tool caveats into a single note rather than restating them in Phase 1 and Route C.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and assumes competence, but carries avoidable padding: an intro line that restates the description ("A framework-agnostic, hypothesis-driven workflow...") and repeated multi-platform portability caveats (Claude Code / Codex / Gemini) that add tokens without adding guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Throughout, it provides concrete, copy-paste-ready commands (e.g., `gh issue view $ARGUMENTS --json ...`, `agent-browser click @ref`, `git log --oneline -20 -- [affected_files]`, and a full heredoc `gh issue comment` example), matching the executable score-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced five-phase workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops, including an "If reproduction fails" recovery path and a mandatory user-confirmation gate before any external action such as posting to the issue. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is self-contained in SKILL.md with no bundle files and is organized into clearly headed phases; the only cross-references are to a sibling skill (`agent-browser`) and native tools, which are clearly signaled and one level deep. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |