Content
50%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 highly actionable and well-sequenced, with real validation checkpoints (recompile verification, format compliance with auto-fix patterns, resumable state persistence). However, it is significantly undermined by verbatim duplication of the review prompt and an adjacent duplicated paragraph, two conflicting "Step 9" sections, and a direct contradiction between Step 5 (fresh Round 2 thread) and the Key Rules (reply_start to maintain context), plus no reference files to absorb the inlined prompt templates.
Suggestions
Extract the shared review-prompt template into a reference file (e.g. references/review-prompt.md) and reference it from both Step 2 and Step 5, stating only the per-round delta (fresh read, round label) inline — this removes ~60 duplicated lines and directly improves both conciseness and progressive disclosure.
Resolve the Round 2 contradiction: Step 5 says to start a fresh review thread and never reuse the Round 1 thread, while the Key Rules mandate mcp__gemini-review__review_reply_start to maintain conversation context. Pick one (the fresh-read rationale in Step 5 is the better-justified choice) and delete the contradicting rule.
Deduplicate mechanical text: remove the repeated jobId/polling paragraph in Step 2, renumber the two "Step 9" sections (Document Results and Summary), and fold the duplicated poll-until-done instruction into a single shared line.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line review prompt is duplicated verbatim in Step 2 and Step 5, and Step 2 repeats the identical jobId/polling paragraph twice back-to-back ("After this start call, immediately save the returned jobId and poll..." / "Save the returned jobId, poll... until done=true"), which is noticeable padding with no informational value. It avoids explaining known concepts, so it is not at the severely-verbose floor of 1, but the duplication clearly places it below the mostly-efficient midpoint. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout — bash snippets (latexmk, pdfinfo/log checks), a fully specified structured review prompt, and fix-pattern tables for both content and format issues. Minor gaps remain: placeholders like [VENUE], [paste concatenated sections], and [full current paper text] are not pre-wired, keeping it just below the fully copy-paste-ready anchor at 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–9 are clearly sequenced with real validation checkpoints (recompile with 0-undefined-reference verification, format check with auto-fix loop, optional human checkpoints), which would merit a 4 — but the document contains two sections both numbered "Step 9", and a direct internal contradiction: Step 5 mandates a fresh review_start with "do not reuse the Round 1 thread" while the Key Rules require "mcp__gemini-review__review_reply_start ... for Round 2 to maintain conversation context." The contradiction on a critical branching decision plus the duplicated steps leave real gaps, matching the steps-listed-but-checkpoints-undermined anchor at 3 rather than the minor-gaps anchor at 4. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Headers and section structure are clear, but there are no bundle files at all: the large review-prompt templates (duplicated across two steps) and the fix-pattern tables clearly belong in reference files, and the shared-protocol links point outside the bundle to ../../shared-references/*.md where they cannot be verified as part of this skill. That mix of decent structure with content that should be extracted matches the could-be-better-organized anchor at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |