Content
56%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 delivers an unusually rigorous, well-validated workflow with concrete executable artifacts throughout. Its weaknesses are verbosity (substantial repeated guidance that could be consolidated) and organization (heavy inline scripts and prompts that belong in reference files, plus external references that are not part of the skill bundle).
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated "annotate, do not eliminate" guidance into a single statement in Phase 3 and remove the duplicated "bold idea with named risk" and "Apply X to Y" passages (each currently appears in both Phase 2 and Phase 4/Key Rules), cutting roughly 30-40 lines of redundancy.
Move the Phase 0 bash resolution/scanner script and the full spawn_agent/send_input prompt templates into reference files inside the skill (e.g., references/), keeping SKILL.md to the resolution rule and a short prompt summary.
Fix the duplicate step numbering in Phase 1 (two steps are numbered "2") and make the Phase 4 ranking-merge step concrete (e.g., specify weights or a tie-break rule for merging your assessment with the reviewer's ranking).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~460-line body contains systematic redundancy: the "annotate, do not eliminate" point is restated three ways within Phase 3, the "bold idea with named risk beats hedged" guidance appears in both the Phase 2 and Phase 4 prompts, and Key Rules re-explains "Apply X to Y" already argued in Phase 2. This is noticeably verbose rather than merely needing tightening, matching anchor 2 over 3. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides near copy-paste assets: the full Phase 0 bash resolution/scanner script, complete spawn_agent/send_input prompt templates, named constants with override syntax, a full report template, and exact upsert_idea commands. Minor gaps (placeholders like [user's direction], reliance on reviewer_route.py and shared-reference protocols defined elsewhere) keep it below fully-executable coverage. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 0-7 are clearly sequenced with skip conditions, fail-closed fallbacks (scanner-unavailable, rebuild-once, sequential shard fallback), and explicit validation checkpoints (threat-scan gate before Read, coverage receipt before dedup, pre-launch GPU-hour estimates, pilot timeout kill). Minor gaps — duplicate "2." numbering in Phase 1 and the vague "Merge your assessment" step in Phase 4 — hold it below a perfect sequence. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are clearly signaled as markdown links with stated purpose, but all of them point outside the skill directory (../shared-references/) and no bundle files exist in the skill itself, while ~70 lines of bash resolution logic and full prompt templates are inlined. This matches anchor 3: structure and signaled references exist, but content that should be separate is inline. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |