Content
90%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.
An excellent instruction-only skill body: dense with organization-specific, executable guidance and free of filler. The two 4s reflect a missing error-recovery path for the Linear↔GitHub sync step and a monolithic single-file layout that could offload the conventions catalog to a reference file.
Suggestions
Add one line of recovery guidance for the sync step in section 7, e.g. 'If the GitHub issue does not appear after ~30 seconds, re-run the search once; if it is still missing, tell the user rather than linking a guessed issue number.'
If the label/project catalog grows, move the Linear field conventions (labels, priorities, state flow) into a references/ file with a clear pointer from section 6, keeping SKILL.md as the overview.
State what to do when the user rejects the draft (revise in place vs. re-confirm) to close the feedback loop opened by 'Show a draft first and let the user react'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative throughout — 'Do not open with a Context heading. Start with the reproduction', 'That is the whole job: make it reproducible' — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token carries Agenta-specific information Claude could not infer, matching the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance: exact tool names ('mcp__linear-server__save_issue', 'mcp__linear-server__list_projects'), a copy-paste command ('gh issue list --repo Agenta-AI/agenta --search "<keywords>"'), concrete good/bad title examples, enumerated labels, numbered priorities, and the state flow. A teammate can act on this without follow-up questions, matching the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear (draft first → title → body → fields → file → post-create linking) with a pre-creation checklist (section 8) and a 'show a draft first' checkpoint. It falls short of 5 because there is no recovery guidance for the fragile sync step — no instruction for what to do if the auto-created GitHub issue does not appear after waiting a few seconds — so an error-recovery feedback loop is missing. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well organized into eight titled sections with no nested references, but at ~130 lines with everything inlined (full label catalog, project list, priority and state conventions) it sits above the under-50-line simple-skill exception. Structure is good with minor organization gaps — the field/label catalog could live in a reference file — fitting the score-4 anchor rather than the well-split, reference-signaling structure of a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |