Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, actionable skill that clearly defines a multi-agent code review workflow with concrete steps, prompt templates, and a precise output format. Its main strengths are the executable specificity of the subagent spawning instructions and the clear verdict synthesis process. Minor weaknesses include some redundancy between the Contract and Workflow sections, and the inability to verify referenced bundle files.
Suggestions
Reduce redundancy between the Contract section and Workflow steps — for example, stale evidence handling and subagent discovery are mentioned in both places; consolidate to one location.
Provide the referenced bundle files (references/reviewing.md, references/reviewer-selection.md) or note their absence, as the skill depends heavily on them for reviewer persona definitions and evidence handling details.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but there's some redundancy — the contract section and workflow sections overlap in places (e.g., stale evidence handling is mentioned in both Contract and Workflow step 3). The Codex-specific paragraph in step 2 adds environment-specific detail that could be trimmed or moved to a reference file. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete prompt templates for subagent spawning, specific git commands for scoping changes, exact output format with labeled fields, and a worked example. The guidance is specific enough to be directly executable — Claude knows exactly what to spawn, what to run, and how to format the output. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step workflow (scope → spawn → collect evidence → synthesize) is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: refresh source of truth before judging, run runtime checks when they change the verdict, mark unverified surfaces explicitly, and block when missing context prevents an honest verdict. The feedback loop of 'if unverified, say so and adjust verdict' is well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to reviewer-selection.md and reviewing.md are well-signaled and one level deep, which is good. However, no bundle files were provided, so we cannot verify these references actually exist. The SKILL.md itself is moderately long (~100 lines of substantive content) and some sections like the Contract could potentially be moved to a reference file to keep the main skill leaner. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |