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 gate skill whose workflow clarity and fail-closed validation are exemplary. It is held back by duplicated caveat text, inline routing boilerplate, pseudocode mixed into Step 5, and a ~50-line wiki script inlined in SKILL.md rather than externalized.
Suggestions
Externalize the Step 5 wiki-update shell block into a reference file (e.g. references/wiki-update.md) or script, keeping only the decision rules inline — the ~50-line block is the main reason progressive_disclosure scores mid-scale.
Deduplicate the same-family/provisional acceptance caveat: state it once (e.g., in the evidence-precheck section) and remove the repeated 'Codex assurance' blockquote, which pads the top of the skill.
Replace the pseudocode in Step 5 ('if [ "$EXP_NODE_OK" = 1 ]:' with a colon, 'for each claim resolved by this verdict:') with real bash or an explicit instruction list so the wiki update is copy-paste executable like Steps 1.5–2.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is operationally dense with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the same-family/provisional acceptance caveat is stated twice (the 'Codex assurance' blockquote and again after Step 1.5), the reviewer-routing blockquotes read like accreted patch notes, and Step 5 embeds ~50 lines of shell inline — more than minor trimming is possible. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly executable guidance: exact wandb API call, ssh tail command, complete evidence_check resolver script, a full spawn_agent prompt template, and concrete research_wiki.py invocations. Not fully copy-paste ready because Step 5 mixes real commands with pseudocode ('if [ "$EXP_NODE_OK" = 1 ]:' colon syntax, 'for each claim resolved by this verdict:') and <placeholder> arguments. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1 through 5 (including 1.5 and 3.5) are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: a deterministic evidence pre-check, integrity-audit fail/warn handling that forces confidence to low, a fail-closed reviewer fallback with traced BLOCKED records, and feedback loops (low confidence → add experiments; repeated partial → narrow scope or pivot). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is clear and references are one level deep and clearly signaled ([evidence-precheck.md](../shared-references/evidence-precheck.md), review-tracing.md), but no bundle files exist here, the ../shared-references/ targets are absent from the bundle, and large content that belongs in reference files — the Step 5 wiki script and the routing-policy blockquotes — is inlined. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |