Content
80%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 concise, highly actionable verification skill with well-organized sections and copy-paste commands. Its gap is workflow clarity: it lacks explicit failure-handling feedback loops and the failure-interpretation guidance promised by the description.
Suggestions
Add a short feedback loop for failures, e.g. 'If tests/build fail, read the error, fix the cause, and re-run before proceeding.'
Add a checkpoint for the batch lint auto-fix, e.g. review the applied changes with `git diff` before committing, since `npm run lint` modifies files automatically.
Trim obvious Best practices lines ('Run tests often', 'Periodically build') or fold them into the actionable command sections to tighten token efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean and repo-specific, but the Best practices section leans on slightly obvious guidance ("Run tests often to verify your changes", "Periodically build to check for errors") that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready commands with concrete examples across the common cases: `npm run test -- <FILEPATH>`, directory runs, `autoninja -C out/Default`, `npm run lint`, and `git cl presubmit -u`. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections are clear and single-purpose, but there is no feedback loop (test/build fails → inspect → fix → re-run) and the description's promise to "interpret failures" is not delivered in the body; the batch lint auto-fix also lacks a review checkpoint. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed; content is cleanly organized into well-labeled sections (Testing, Building & compiling, Linting, Best practices), satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |