Content
70%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 detailed, actionable orchestration skill with an excellent sequenced workflow and explicit validation/feedback checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are token inefficiency from a duplicated scope-limits block and inlined test specs that should be split into reference files.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the SCOPE LIMITS block: define it once in a shared reference (e.g. review-scope-limits.md) and link to it from both the Phase A prompt and the Round 2+ template instead of pasting it verbatim twice.
Move the 'Acquittal Gate Test Specifications' section (Tests 1–4) into a separate reference file and link to it, keeping SKILL.md focused on the operative workflow.
Tighten the defensive clarification notes (e.g. 'Earlier wording used or + a stale verdict set; the AND form is authoritative') by consolidating to a single authoritative statement of the stop condition.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient operational detail, but it pads noticeably: the full SCOPE LIMITS block is duplicated verbatim in both the Phase A medium prompt and the Round 2+ template, and a 33-line 'Acquittal Gate Test Specifications' section inlines material that belongs in a separate reference, fitting 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready spawn_agent/send_input prompt blocks, a REVIEW_STATE.json schema, an acquittal-line template, and an explicit /render-html command with flags; only minor gaps remain (placeholder paths and round-specific variables the agent must fill). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced multi-phase workflow (Initialization, Phase A–E, Termination) with explicit validation checkpoints — the Phase B.5.1 stop-evaluation gate, append-only acquittal integrity rules, and the Debate Protocol feedback loop — satisfying the top anchor for complex processes with validation and error-recovery loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is reasonable and shared-references (reviewer-routing.md, review-scope-limits.md, review-tracing.md, output-*.md) are clearly signaled one level deep, but no bundle files exist and content that belongs in separate files — the duplicated scope-limits block and the inlined test specifications — is kept inline, matching the 'some structure; content that should be separate is inline' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |