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.
An exemplarily terse, high-signal skill body: it defines context setup, an evidence bar with acceptance and rejection criteria, and output rules entirely through project-specific guidance with no filler. The only room for improvement is a small amount of concrete scaffolding — an example simplification note and an explicit verification loop for candidates.
Suggestions
Include a compact template or example of a proposed simplification note (consumers, exact removal, counterargument, ACs, risks, verification owners) so the output format is unambiguous on first use.
Add an explicit validation loop for candidates, e.g., 'for each accepted candidate, re-run the consumer search with alternative spellings/wire names before proposing the note', to close the workflow-clarity gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — every line carries project-specific information (the evidence bar, 'pnpm change:scope --base <verified-ref>', the 'agent-notes' workflow, rejection criteria) with zero padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. This matches anchor 5: every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance is present: an executable command ('Run pnpm change:scope --base <verified-ref>'), a specific survey division list ('renderer, data systems, IPC, lifecycle services, Agent/runtime, packages/scripts, and test infrastructure'), explicit search targets ('exact symbols, wire names, config keys, paths'), and explicit rejection criteria. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 only because there is no worked example of a simplification note and just one executable command. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence is conveyed through the sections — establish context, search, evaluate against the evidence bar, reject or accept, output a note, report — with rejection criteria ('Reject a candidate when it removes supported behavior, violates documented ownership, or merely relocates the same complexity') serving as validation checkpoints and 'checks actually run' requiring verification reporting. It is not anchor 5 because there is no explicit verify-and-retry feedback loop for candidate validation. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill body is under 50 lines, has no need for external reference files (none exist in the bundle), and is organized into clear, well-labeled sections (Establish context, Evidence bar, Output). Per the rubric's guideline for short skills with no external references, this matches anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |