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.
The body is highly actionable and the workflow is exceptionally well-sequenced with validation, checkpointing, and recovery logic. Its weaknesses are redundancy (principles repeated three times, overlapping Phase 5 report templates) and the absence of any progressive disclosure — large templates and the full reviewer rubric are inlined in SKILL.md rather than split into reference files.
Suggestions
Move the ~90-line proposal template (Step 1.6) and the reviewer rubric text (Phase 2/4 bundles) into references/ files (e.g. references/proposal-template.md, references/reviewer-prompt.md) and link to them, keeping SKILL.md as an overview.
State the four core principles once in the Overview and remove their verbatim repetition in Step 1.4 and Key Rules, keeping only any rule not already covered.
Consolidate the three overlapping Phase 5 report templates: REVIEW_SUMMARY.md, REFINEMENT_REPORT.md, and score-history.md duplicate the score-evolution and round-by-round tables; define each table once and reference it.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core principles ("One paper, one dominant contribution", "The smallest adequate mechanism wins", modern-leverage-as-prior) are restated three times across Overview, Step 1.4, and Key Rules, and the Phase 5 report templates (REVIEW_SUMMARY.md, REFINEMENT_REPORT.md, score-history.md) overlap substantially with each other. The templates are actionable rather than filler, but the repetition and template overlap mean the body could be meaningfully tightened — anchor 3, not 4 (which requires only minor trims). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The body provides exact output file paths, a concrete JSON state schema with a field-definition table, explicit MCP invocation blocks (model, config, prompt shape), and full copy-paste markdown templates for every output artifact — an engineer could execute the workflow verbatim. This matches anchor 5 (fully executable, copy-paste ready, covers common cases). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The phased workflow (0-5) is clearly sequenced with an explicit review-revise loop, a precise stop condition ("Overall score >= SCORE_THRESHOLD and verdict is READY and no unresolved drift"), and checkpoint-recovery logic including a resume-phase table and stale-state rules. Validation is embedded throughout (Anchor Check, Simplicity Check, drift warnings, score threshold) — anchor 5 with explicit validation and feedback loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), yet the body inlines roughly 90 lines of proposal template plus the full reviewer rubric and re-evaluation bundle text — content that clearly belongs in references/ files. Section headers and the shared-references links are well signaled, so structure is present but significant content that should be separate is inline — anchor 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |