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 well-sequenced, highly actionable workflow with strong validation gates, weakened by redundant restatement of the same rules across Constants, phases, and Key Rules, and by a monolithic layout whose references point to files that do not exist in the bundle.
Suggestions
State each hard rule once (e.g., no-fabrication, no-overpromise, character-limit budget) in a single authoritative section and reference it from the phases instead of repeating it in Phase 4, Key Rules, and Constants.
Move the REVISION_PLAN.md specification and its example checklist into a reference file (e.g., references/revision-plan.md) and keep only the purpose and linking rules in SKILL.md.
Ship the referenced shared-references files (reviewer-backends.md, reviewer-routing.md, review-tracing.md) in the bundle or inline the minimal routing/tracing details needed to execute those steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and instructive rather than padded, but rules are duplicated across sections: "NEVER invent experiments, numbers, derivations, citations, or links" appears in Phase 4 hard rules and again in Key Rules, character-limit rules repeat in Constants, Phase 5, and Key Rules, and RENDER_HTML is fully specified in both Constants and Phase 9. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete per-phase file artifacts, an issue-card schema with enumerated fields, character-budget percentages, and an executable spawn_agent message template make the guidance mostly executable; docked slightly for unverifiable directives like "reviewer_route.py through the canonical helper resolver" pointing to files not in the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 0-9 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: three hard safety gates, Phase 5 lints with a defined compression order, Phase 6 stress test with "If hard safety blocker → revise before finalizing", resume-from-state handling, and re-run of lints on follow-up rounds. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is clear, but the ~300-line body inlines the full REVISION_PLAN specification and example checklist that belong in a reference file, and every cross-reference (../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, reviewer-routing.md, review-tracing.md, /render-html, /experiment-bridge) targets files absent from the bundle, so navigation cannot actually be followed. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |