Content
71%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.
This is a dense, well-structured instruction skill: concrete contracts, exact field names, classifier tables, and validation checkpoints make it genuinely actionable for its multi-agent routing domain, and nearly every token carries a rule. Its main weakness is monolithic structure — all scenario detail lives in one long body with no reference files, and some guidance is restated across sections.
Suggestions
Split the scenario contracts (External Review Verdict Delivery Custody, Local Cat Review Return Route, F246 Phase J) into files under references/ and link them from a leaner overview, keeping SKILL.md to the classifiers, core rules, and the error table.
Remove the redundancy between the 可选参考：交接五项 table and the 可选参考：不同交接的重点 scenarios by merging them into one section, since the scenario list mostly restates which of the five items matter.
Add one complete example call for github_record_external_review_verdict and one ordinary A2A local-review verdict message, since these are the main completion exits but currently exist only as field lists.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, high-signal rule text with essentially no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every line states a protocol constraint. Minor trimming is possible: the "可选参考：不同交接的重点" scenario section partially repeats the five-item table, and routing rules recur across the prose sections and the 常见错误 table. This sits at anchor 4 (efficient with minor over-explanation) rather than 5 due to that redundancy, and well above 3. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete: a copy-paste-ready action JSON block with exact fields, enum values ("approved | changes_requested | commented"), required field names (reviewedHeadSha, acceptedSourceRef, clientMessageId), and decision tables with explicit criteria and exits. It misses anchor 5 because calls like post_message(action.mode=single), multi_mention, and github_record_external_review_verdict are named but never shown as complete executable examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sequencing is explicit ("必须先跑上面的 author/custody/handoff source 分类，再显式确认 review mode") with validation checkpoints throughout: exact HEAD/body proof, delivery proof URL, fail-closed branches, terminal predicates, and a closing 自检 checklist. It is not 5 because the workflow is spread across per-scenario sections rather than one explicit validate→fix→retry flow with feedback loops for the overall process. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), so the entire ~215-line content — four scenario-specific contracts, two classifier tables, and the F246 phase rules — is inlined in a single SKILL.md. Cross-references like ../.cat-cafe-shared-refs/shared-rules.md and feat-lifecycle are one level deep and clearly signaled, but substantial scenario content that clearly belongs in separate reference files is inline, matching anchor 3. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |