Content
73%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 well-structured, safety-focused skill body: the landing workflow is sequenced with strong reject-default validation gates, backups, and per-patch reporting, and the bash snippets are executable. Weaknesses are redundancy between the rules/Key Rules sections and design-rationale prose, plus an under-specified reviewer-spawn step and undefined shell variables in the stamp command.
Suggestions
Merge 'Key Rules' into 'The non-negotiable rules' — nearly every key rule restates body text verbatim, so the repetition is pure token cost.
Make Step 1's reviewer spawn concrete: give the actual spawn_agent invocation (or point to a runnable helper) and define how $AUTHOR, $JURY_MODEL, $TARGET, and $JURY_REVIEW_ID get populated before the stamp command.
Move the design-rationale sections ('The acquittal is generated HERE, not relayed', 'Provenance is a receipt, not an acquittal') into a linked reference file so the body stays an operational checklist.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient — no generic-concept padding — but rules are stated two to three times across 'The non-negotiable rules', the workflow steps, and 'Key Rules' ('Human-invoked only', 'never trust a producer-written verdict', 'stamp-provisional' each repeat), and the design-rationale sections could be tightened. Not 4: the duplication of Key Rules against the body is more than a minor trim; not 2: there is no conceptual over-explanation or filler. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Step 0 gives fully executable bash (staging check, provenance.py resolution with fallbacks) and Step 2 gives a concrete stamp command with flags. Not 5: the reviewer spawn in Step 1 is described only in prose (no concrete invocation), and variables like $AUTHOR, $JURY_MODEL, $TARGET, $JURY_REVIEW_ID are used without being defined anywhere. Not 3: the code that is present is real and executable, not pseudocode. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0-3 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints for a destructive/batch operation: 'any failure ⇒ skip & report, never silently apply', PASS/KILL gate before any mutation, backups before every change, per-patch result reporting, and removal of landed patches from pending. Not 4: validation is not merely present but enforced as a gate with reject-default and explicit error paths at each step. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good single-file structure with clear sections (privilege boundary, non-negotiable rules, workflow, key rules, review tracing), and cross-links to shared-references files (reviewer-backends.md, reviewer-independence.md, review-scope-limits.md, skill-governance.md, review-tracing.md) that are clearly signaled and one level deep. Not 5: no bundle files ship in this skill's directory and the referenced paths point outside it where their existence cannot be verified; not 3: nothing that clearly belongs in a separate file is inlined — the ~160-line body is well-sectioned. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |