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.
A well-structured, framework-agnostic workflow with strong sequencing, feedback loops, and a safety gate before external actions. The main improvable areas are a thrice-repeated parenthetical and a few directive-only investigation phases lacking concrete commands.
Suggestions
State the platform question-tool guidance once (e.g., in a short 'Conventions' note) instead of repeating the three-tool parenthetical in Phases 1, 3, and 5.
Add one or two concrete example invocations for the investigation phase (e.g., a sample grep pattern for an error string, or a sample hypothesis write-up) to push actionability from mostly-executable to fully-executable.
Either bundle a minimal agent-browser quick-reference or inline its essential commands so the workflow does not depend on a possibly absent external skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient — phased sections, terse bullets, and purposeful commands with no basic-concept padding. It falls short of 5 mainly because the parenthetical enumerating platform question tools ('e.g., AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex, ask_user in Gemini') is repeated verbatim three times and could be stated once. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly executable: `gh issue view $ARGUMENTS --json ...`, a copy-paste set of `agent-browser` commands, `git log --oneline` invocations, and a complete `gh issue comment` heredoc template. It is not 5 because the hypothesis, log-search, and code-trace phases are directive rather than backed by concrete commands, and port placeholders like `[affected_route]` remain undefined. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five clearly sequenced phases with ranked hypotheses, an explicit error-recovery loop ('If reproduction fails' -> revisit hypotheses, check environment specificity, inspect recent commits), and a hard confirmation checkpoint before any external action ('Do not post comments ... without explicit confirmation'). Not 4 because validation checkpoints are explicit, not merely implicit. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | As a single-file skill with no bundle directories, its structure is good: well-organized phases, inline commands, and inline templates of appropriate size. It is not 5 because the pointer to 'the agent-browser skill for setup and detailed CLI usage' references a non-bundled external skill that may not exist in the environment, a minor navigation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |