Content
77%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.
An operationally rich, well-sequenced workflow with strong validation gates and resume behavior, held back by its monolithic structure: everything lives inline in one long file with no reference bundle, and some content (templates, prompt blocks, rules lists) is repeated or could be extracted. Guidance is highly actionable with only minor abstraction gaps in the tone/limit lints.
Suggestions
Extract stable, bulky material into reference files (e.g., references/revision-plan-template.md, references/stress-test-prompt.md, references/rebuttal-heuristics.md) and signal them from the body, keeping SKILL.md as a lean phase-by-phase overview — this bundle currently has no references/ directory at all.
Deduplicate the safety model: the three gates are stated in 'Safety Model', re-stated as Phase 5 lints, and again in 'Key Rules'; state each once and cross-reference to cut ~20 lines.
Make the tone and limit lints executable: give example aggressive/submissive/evasive phrases to flag and a concrete character-count command (e.g., `wc -m rebuttal/PASTE_READY.txt`) for the Phase 5 limit lint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and operational — file names, budgets, round limits, hard rules — and never explains concepts Claude already knows, fitting the 4 anchor ('efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed'). It is not a 5 because of redundancy: safety gates appear three times (Safety Model, Phase 5 lints, Key Rules), and the inline REVISION_PLAN.md template (30 lines) plus the heuristic and rules lists could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Largely concrete and executable: exact output filenames, issue-card field schemas, character budget percentages, a copy-paste `/render-html` invocation, and a full spawn_agent block. It is not a 5 because a few instructions remain abstract without examples — the tone lint says to "flag aggressive/submissive/evasive phrases" without sample phrases, and character counting is mandated but no command (e.g., `wc -m`) is given. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 0–9 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: three hard safety gates, Phase 5 lints with a defined compress order, draft→lint→revise rounds (MAX_INTERNAL_DRAFT_ROUNDS), resume-from-state on rerun, and pause-and-ask on missing venue rules or unresolved blockers. This matches the 5 anchor exactly. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a ~300-line monolithic SKILL.md with no bundle at all (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist), and substantial content that belongs in separate reference files is inlined (the REVISION_PLAN.md template spec, the stress-test prompt, the rebuttal heuristics list). The two external references (`../shared-references/reviewer-routing.md`, `review-tracing.md`) are clearly signaled but unresolvable from this bundle. That fits the 3 anchor ('content that should be separate is inline') better than the 4 anchor, since there is no actual split structure to credit. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |