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.
The body is compact, well-structured, and highly actionable with complete code and parameter documentation. Its main gap is the absence of any validation or verification step for a batch, potentially destructive rename operation.
Suggestions
Add a verification step to the workflow — e.g., preview affected names or run on a sample first, then confirm before applying batch renames — to lift workflow_clarity above the batch-operation cap.
Remove the redundant blockquote that restates the description, and note the import only once, to tighten conciseness from 4 toward 5.
Consider flagging the irreversibility of bulk renames and recommending a backup or dry-run flag if the underlying function supports one.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and well-sectioned with no concept over-explanation; minor trim opportunities exist (the blockquote restates the description and the import appears in both the signature and example blocks). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a complete function signature, a full parameter table with types/defaults/required flags, and two copy-paste-ready examples covering the replace and delete use cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a batch/destructive operation yet the body shows no validation, dry-run, or verification checkpoint — the rubric's batch-operation cap holds workflow clarity at 3 even though the single action is unambiguous. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A compact (~60 lines), self-contained single-purpose skill with no bundle files and no nested references; clear section headers make navigation easy, satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |