Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise, concrete, and well-organized with executable examples and an audit command, scoring high on conciseness, actionability, and progressive disclosure. The main gap is workflow clarity: the audit command lacks an explicit verify-and-fix loop to confirm the naming audit passes after renames.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification step after the audit command, e.g. "Run the grep, fix each non-conforming name, then re-run until the command returns no output."
Clarify that the audit command returning empty output is the success signal for a complete rename pass.
Optionally note that `it_authorized_user_can_delete_task` is acceptable because it reads as a sentence, to avoid confusion with the discouraged it_user_* pattern.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: rule, correct/wrong tables, the it_user_* smell, attribute guidance, return type, a checklist, and an audit command — every section earns its place and assumes Claude already knows PHPUnit and PHP syntax. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready correct/wrong examples with concrete fixes, a `#[Test]` attribute pattern, and an executable grep audit command, so the guidance is fully actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The checklist sequences the writing process (start with it_, read aloud, meaningful verb, scenario, void return), but there is no validation/verification checkpoint to confirm an audit pass or that a rename is complete after running the audit command. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a short single-purpose skill with no external bundle files, the well-organized sections (Rule, Correct, Wrong, Smell, Attribute, Checklist, Audit) are appropriately self-contained; no nested references are needed. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |