Content
75%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 a well-structured, mostly executable four-phase workflow with concrete MCP tooling and a tracing step. Weakest spots are minor verbosity (overlay prose and redundant constants) and light error-recovery detail in the polling loop.
Suggestions
Remove or relocate the opening blockquote overlay/install prose (lines 6-13) since it is reviewer-install context, not novelty-check instruction, and adds off-topic tokens.
Collapse the Constants section into the Phase C instructions, since REVIEWER_MODEL and REVIEWER_BACKEND both restate the claude-review MCP bridge already described.
Add an explicit poll-loop fallback (e.g. max attempts / timeout behavior and what to do when review_status never returns done=true) to strengthen the validation feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete phases and rules, but the opening blockquote overlay prose and the redundant Constants section add minor over-explanation that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance including specific MCP tool names (mcp__claude-review__review_start, review_status), polling semantics, and concrete search sources; Phases A-B remain somewhat guidance-level with minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear A-D sequence with a verification checkpoint via the cross-family reviewer; the poll-loop error recovery is light, leaving a minor validation gap short of a full feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with a single clearly signaled external reference (../shared-references/review-tracing.md); no bundle files exist, so structure is appropriate for a self-contained skill with minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |