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.
The body is a dense, actionable playbook: an exact UseCaseAttribute definition, a complete SQLite three-DbContext test example, a spec-as-oracle failure policy, and a validated workflow with a failure decision loop. It is slightly long in places (security boilerplate, naming conventions) and keeps everything in one file rather than splitting detail into references, but organization and executability are strong.
Suggestions
Trim the prompt-injection paragraph and the class-naming parenthetical to their operative rules to reclaim tokens without losing guidance.
Consider moving the full traceability section (attribute source plus the ~30-line example) into a references/ file, keeping only the attribute shape and a compact example inline in SKILL.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with non-obvious project policy ("Prefer SQLite in-memory or Testcontainers... Avoid UseInMemoryDatabase", "The specification is the oracle, not the code") rather than known-concept explanation, so it sits above the 'mostly efficient with unnecessary explanation' anchor. It falls short of the lean anchor because the prompt-injection paragraph and the long class-naming parenthetical ("UC plus the digits of the id plus the PascalCase use case name — plus Handler (so it sits next to the bUnit class...") could be trimmed without losing rules. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives the exact attribute shape ("the shape must be exactly this" with a complete UseCaseAttribute class), a near copy-paste-ready SQLite test covering connection setup, seeding, act, and assert, and the concrete command `dotnet test`. Not 4: the examples cover the common cases fully with executable code, a spec-heading mapping table, and exact naming conventions. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step workflow has explicit validation ("Execute `dotnet test` to confirm tests pass"), a failure feedback loop ("decide which side is wrong before you change anything" with fix-the-test vs. leave-it-failing branches), and re-run guidance ("Run the whole test class afterwards, not only the methods you added"). Test generation is neither destructive nor batch, so the cap-3 rule does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are clear and well-ordered with a working in-file anchor link ([When a Test Fails](#when-a-test-fails)), and the ~135-line body keeps all guidance one level deep with no buried references. It is not 5 because nothing is split into a references file (the full traceability example and attribute source are candidates) and the file exceeds the under-50-lines simple-skill case; it is not 3 because structure and content placement are appropriate for its size. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |