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 well-structured instruction skill: token-efficient imperative body, clear workflow routing with an explicit evidence-driven development loop, and exemplary progressive disclosure that pushes all procedural detail (CDP, instance lifecycle, PR checkout) into three real, clearly signaled reference files. The only tightening opportunities are inline the most common verification command patterns and making the failure/retry path explicit.
Suggestions
Include one or two copy-paste-ready command snippets for the most common verification actions (e.g., how to capture console/network evidence or a before/after DOM snapshot) so the body alone can execute routine cases without opening a reference.
Add an explicit failure-handling branch to the development loop: what to do when step 8 verification fails (re-trace the code path, re-run baseline, when to invoke instance replacement) to complete the feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative throughout — e.g., "Capture the smallest useful evidence", "Keep Electron running. Use HMR for renderer changes" — with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. Every sentence directs behavior, matching the every-token-earns-its-place anchor rather than the minor-trimming anchor (4). | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and specific (artifact path ".context/cherry-electron-dev/", "Use HMR for renderer changes and verify in the same window", "Check both renderer and main-process evidence"), and it correctly delegates executable procedures to references. It is mostly-executable with minor gaps — the body itself contains no commands/recipes for the common cases, so it does not reach the fully-executable anchor (5), but it clearly exceeds the incomplete-guidance anchor (3). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step development loop is clearly sequenced with explicit verification checkpoints (step 1 "the evidence that will prove it", step 4 reproduce-before-edit, step 8 "Repeat the same scenario and compare before/after evidence") plus restart criteria. It falls short of the anchor-5 pattern because error-recovery feedback loops (what to do when verification fails) are only implicit/delegated rather than explicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview with three well-signaled, one-level-deep references ([PR Testing](references/pr-testing.md), [Electron Instance Management](references/electron-instance.md), [Performance Debugging](references/performance-debugging.md)), each motivated by when to read it; all three files exist in references/ and content is appropriately split. Cross-links inside references point only to the directly-linked peer electron-instance.md, so navigation stays shallow — matching the anchor-5 example, not merely the mostly-clear anchor (4). | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |