Content
82%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 tight, well-sequenced instruction-only skill: schema discovery with sensible declared defaults, exact check definitions with quantitative thresholds, a literal report format, and an unusually careful edit policy (approval gating, mechanical/judgement batching, never-list). The main gaps are minor: no post-edit re-verification loop and slight repetition of the approval rule across sections.
Suggestions
Add a final verification step to §5 (e.g., 'after the edit pass, re-run the relevant checks on the touched files to confirm findings cleared and no new broken links were introduced') to close the feedback loop on batch edits.
State the report-first/no-unapproved-edits rule once (its natural home is §5) and drop the restatement from the intro paragraph, which can also lose one sentence of the 'rots quietly' preamble.
If the skill grows further, move the §3 checks catalogue (the largest block) into a references/checks.md and keep a severity summary inline, giving the body one-level-deep navigation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes competence — link resolution rules, check thresholds, and the report format are given as bare facts with no tutorializing. It falls at level 4 rather than 5 because of minor trims available: the two-sentence 'rots quietly' preamble and the report-first/approval rule stated in the intro, again in §4's framing, and again in §5's title and first line. Not level 3 ('several unnecessary explanations') since no concept Claude already knows is explained. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is copy-paste concrete throughout: exact glob ('`**/*.md` minus exclusions'), all three link forms with syntax, exact staleness thresholds ('more than six weeks', 'more than three months', 'tag on four or more notes'), a literal report line format ('`[HIGH] path/to/note.md: <what is wrong>. Fix: <suggested edit>.`'), and a split of fixes into mechanical vs judgement batches. Per the rubric's scoring note, absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized when guidance is this specific — this fully matches the level-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five phases (schema → read → checks → report → fix-on-approval) are clearly sequenced with strong checkpoints for the risky part: edits are gated behind explicit user approval, split into safe-to-batch mechanical fixes vs per-item judgement calls, and bounded by a never-do list. It sits at 4 rather than 5 because the workflow lacks a post-edit verification loop — after the batch of approved edits there is no step to re-run the lint to confirm findings actually cleared, which the rubric's feedback-loop note calls for in batch-edit contexts. It is not capped at 3: validation is not missing (the skill is validate-first by design, and false-positive suppression rules in §4 act as an accuracy check on the report). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | There are no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and the body's ~68 lines are organized into five well-named sections with checks grouped by severity — structure is good and nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined. It scores 4 rather than 5 because the rubric's automatic-5 for section-only organization applies to skills under 50 lines; at this length the §3 checks catalogue could plausibly live in a one-level-deep reference file, and no navigation/signposting beyond the section headers exists. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |