Content
86%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, actionable skill body with project-specific rules, a complete SQL example, and a validated workflow. The two gaps keeping it from the top tier are the missing foreign-key example in the sample migration and the absence of an error-recovery loop after the validation step.
Suggestions
Extend the example migration (or add a second, e.g. V003__create_reservation_table.sql) to show foreign key syntax, since FKs are a core deliverable the DO NOT section says must never be skipped.
Add a feedback loop after the validation step in the Workflow, e.g. 'If any check fails, fix the migration and re-validate before writing the file', to reach the rubric's error-recovery standard for database operations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and entirely project-specific: the binary-column convention ('BYTEA on PostgreSQL, BLOB... elsewhere — never VARCHAR or Base64 text'), sequence-for-PK rule, and '{table_name}_seq' pattern are things Claude could not know, and no general SQL or Flyway concepts are explained. The prompt-injection guardrail is the only lengthy passage, but it earns its place since the workflow reads project files; it does not rise to the 'minor instances of over-explanation' of anchor 4. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The example migration is complete, executable SQL and the naming convention gives concrete file names, but the example shows no foreign key — a core deliverable the skill explicitly forbids skipping ('Skip foreign key constraints defined in the entity model'). This is the 'minor gaps' of anchor 4 rather than the full common-case coverage of anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with an explicit validation step listing four concrete checks (entity coverage, FK ordering, sequence naming, SQL validity), and the DO NOT section guards the destructive case (dropping tables). It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., 'if a check fails, fix and re-validate'), which the rubric flags as important for database operations; validation is present, so anchor 3 does not fit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a compact single-file skill with no bundle files; the body is organized into clear sections (Instructions, DO NOT, File Naming Convention, Example Migration, Workflow) and nothing is inlined that belongs in a separate reference file. Under the rubric's simple-skill guidance, well-organized sections with no need for external references score 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |