Content
67%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 a well-structured, actionable operational spec with explicit validation gates and good progressive disclosure via delegation to codex-autoresearch. Its main weakness is redundancy: routing rules are restated across several sections, which hurts conciseness.
Suggestions
Consolidate the routing rules: state them once in 'Start Or Resume' or 'Relationship To Other Lanes' and have 'Natural Modes' reference that table instead of restating every route.
Trim the 'Relationship To Other Lanes' list to the lanes that affect routing decisions, or move the full registry to a reference file.
Add a short validate->fix->retry feedback loop inside 'Start Or Resume' for the packet keep/discard cycle so the workflow reads as an explicit error-recovery loop rather than a route-elsewhere rule.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and free of beginner-concept padding, but routing to slate-patch/slate-plan/slate-ar-perf/slate-ar-gate is restated across 'Use When', 'Relationship To Other Lanes', 'Natural Modes', and 'Start Or Resume', which could be tightened; not a 4 due to that repeated redundancy. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands ('pnpm bench:targets:dry-run -- <target-id>', 'node tooling/scripts/bench-targets.mjs autoresearch-init <target-id>', 'finalize-preview --cwd .tmp/slate-v2') and specific paths; not a 5 because much of the guidance is routing to other skills rather than directly copy-paste-ready execution. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | 'Start Or Resume' is a clear 5-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (keep only when measured target improves and correctness checks pass; checks_failed/discard on behavior regression) and the finalization mode has explicit approval gates, satisfying the destructive/batch validation requirement; not a 5 because some checkpoints route elsewhere rather than providing an in-loop validate->fix->retry cycle. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections and explicitly defers command details, packet lifecycle, dashboard operation, ASI syntax, and finalization rules to codex-autoresearch as one-level, well-signaled references; not a 5 because the body is long and the lane-relationship list plus repeated routing could arguably be trimmed or factored out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |