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.
The body is an exceptionally clear, highly actionable multi-phase workflow with strong checkpoint/recovery design and a real review feedback loop. Its weaknesses are length-driven: duplicated job/poll and principle restatements bloat the token budget, and heavy templates are inlined in SKILL.md instead of being split into reference files.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the reviewer-polling instructions: state the save-jobId / poll review_status / save-threadId procedure once (e.g., in a short 'Review protocol' subsection or Key Rules) and reference it from Phases 2 and 4 instead of repeating it three times, and trim the Key Rules that restate the four Overview principles.
Move the ~87-line proposal template and the full REVIEW_SUMMARY / REFINEMENT_REPORT templates into references/ files (e.g., references/proposal-template.md, references/report-templates.md), keeping only the section skeleton inline in SKILL.md, and verify the ../shared-references/* links resolve from the installed bundle location.
Close the actionability gaps: specify how to parse the 7 dimension scores, overall score, and verdict from the raw reviewer response (expected format or extraction rule), and give a concrete bounded value for waitSeconds when polling review_status.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient but contains clear tighten-able redundancy: the jobId-save/poll instruction is stated twice back-to-back in Phase 2 ('After this start call, immediately save the returned jobId...' immediately followed by '**CRITICAL: Save the returned jobId**, poll...'), repeats verbatim in Phase 4 and again in Key Rules, and the Key Rules section restates the four opening principles and the Phase 3 revision biases. This matches the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' anchor rather than the minor-trim anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is highly concrete: named constants, exact output file paths, a full state-JSON schema, complete copy-paste MCP tool-call blocks with embedded reviewer prompts, and full output document templates. Minor gaps remain — no instruction for parsing the score/verdict out of the raw reviewer response (only '<parsed>' placeholders), the 'bounded waitSeconds' polling value is never specified, and 'Check papers/ and literature/ first' assumes directories that may not exist — which fits 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than fully covering the common cases at anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 0-5 are clearly sequenced with an explicit stop condition ('overall score >= SCORE_THRESHOLD', 'verdict is READY', 'no unresolved drift'), a max-round bound, checkpoint persistence after every phase boundary, resume logic with a 24-hour staleness rule, and a genuine validate-revise-re-review feedback loop with drift detection and pushback rules. This matches the anchor requiring explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and error-recovery guidance. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), and the ~730-line body inlines large templates that would naturally live in separate reference files: an ~87-line proposal template, an ~65-line reviewer prompt, and three full report templates. External links (../shared-references/taste-calibration.md, ../../shared-references/output-versioning.md) are clearly signaled and one level deep, but point outside this bundle. This fits 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline' better than the well-split anchor 4 or 5. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |