Content
88%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 tightly written, highly actionable instruction skill with a clear gated workflow, explicit checklists, and a feedback loop. The two gaps are motivational prose in "Why this exists" that could be cut, and an orphaned bundle script (the abstraction-level linter) that the body never mentions.
Suggestions
Trim "Why this exists" to one or two sentences — the argument that verification is the bottleneck is background Claude doesn't need; the concrete guidance that follows stands on its own.
Add a self-check step referencing the existing bundle script, e.g. "Validate the plan: `python scripts/lint_pseudocode.py plan.md` checks section coverage, language-agnosticism, and the 60-line budget" — the linter exists for exactly this purpose but is currently undiscoverable.
Fold the closing commentary ("That `> vs ≥` line is the whole game…") into the example's introduction so the point is stated once instead of repeated after the example.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core guidance (gate signals, artifact sections, constraints, example) is dense and assumes Claude's competence, but the "Why this exists" section spends ~180 words on motivational argument ("Generating code is now nearly free; verifying it is the bottleneck") that could be trimmed to a sentence or two, and the closing commentary after the example repeats the section's point. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully followable instruction-only guidance: an exact gate question with explicit yes/no signal lists, four named artifact sections with what each must contain, do/don't constraint examples ("Write `group rows by key`, not the call" vs `df.groupby(...)`), and a worked example at three abstraction levels. The pseudocode example is the explicitly justified point of the skill, not a substitute for executable code. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence — gate, "State the verdict before proceeding", write the plan, review it ("Keep the whole thing reviewable in under ~60 seconds"), implement against it, reconcile — with explicit validation ("check it before generating code"), a checklist (the four sections, "omitting a section is choosing not to look for that class"), and an error-recovery feedback loop ("If the plan turns out wrong while coding, fix the plan, don't just patch the code"). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-organized with clear headers and appropriately keeps all core content inline in a single file, but the bundle's one auxiliary file, scripts/lint_pseudocode.py (whose docstring says it is "intended for both the skill (self-check)"), is never referenced anywhere in the body — the only navigation path to it is missing, so Claude would never discover or run the linter. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |