Content
66%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.
Operationally excellent — the loop workflow is precisely sequenced with validation gates and copy-ready prompts — but token-inefficient due to large verbatim duplications and changelog residue. The monolithic 550-line body with no local bundle files also underuses progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
State the SCOPE LIMITS block once (e.g., in review-scope-limits.md, which is already linked) and reference it from both prompt templates instead of duplicating it verbatim — saves ~35 lines.
Consolidate the three overlapping Debate Protocol descriptions ('Claude-Aligned Reviewer Memory and Debate', 'Instructions', and Phase B.6) and the duplicated reviewer-memory rules into a single section.
Move the Acquittal Gate Test Specifications and the REVIEWER_MEMORY.md template into a reference file, and drop changelog meta-commentary like '(Earlier wording used "or" + a stale verdict set...)' from the operational text.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~550-line body duplicates the 35-line SCOPE LIMITS block verbatim twice, describes the Debate Protocol in three separate sections, repeats reviewer-memory rules twice, and includes changelog meta-commentary ('Earlier wording used "or" + a stale verdict set') — several padded sections, noticeably verbose rather than merely tightenable. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete spawn_agent/send_input templates, exact review_gate.py command lines, and JSON state schemas make the default path fully executable; minor gaps are the deferred resolution of $REVIEW_GATE/reviewer_route.py via an external integration-contract.md and shared-references files not present in this bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases A–E are clearly sequenced with explicit validation gates (stop-evaluation gate, append-only receipt rules, 24-hour resume logic, run_id binding) plus four test specifications verifying the acquittal mechanism — feedback loops and checkpoints are present throughout. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good section structure with clearly signaled one-level-deep links (reviewer-backends.md, review-scope-limits.md, output protocols), but no bundle files exist here, references resolve outside the skill directory, and content that belongs in reference files (test specs, full duplicated prompt blocks, memory templates) is inlined. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |