Content
78%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 an exemplar of lean progressive disclosure: a brief purpose statement plus two clearly-signaled references that carry the executable detail. Its weakness is actionability within the body itself, which contains no commands or code, and the absence of explicit validation checkpoints in the routing workflow.
Suggestions
Add a 2-3 line quick-start with the most common commands (e.g. `pnpm typecheck`, `pnpm --filter @composio/<pkg> test`) inline so the body is actionable without forcing a reference read for simple cases.
Include an explicit validation checkpoint after running broad checks (e.g. re-run the focused package test or typecheck before declaring a change verified) to add a feedback loop to the routing workflow.
State which reference to read first for a generic 'run the tests' request versus a CLI-specific request, so the routing decision is unambiguous when both could apply.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~9-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (it never explains what Vitest, Effect, or E2E are); every line either states purpose or signals when to read a reference, matching the score-5 anchor rather than the score-4 anchor which expects minor over-explanation to trim. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The body gives concrete routing (specific file paths tied to specific situations) but contains no executable commands or code itself, deferring all executable content to the reference files; this fits the score-3 anchor (some concrete guidance but incomplete, key details elsewhere) rather than score 4 which expects mostly-executable inline guidance. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | As a simple routing skill the sequence is clear (choose verification -> read the relevant reference -> act), but the body itself provides no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops, placing it at score 4 (clear sequence, minor validation gaps) rather than score 5 (explicit validation steps). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview pointing to two well-signaled one-level-deep references (references/test-commands.md and references/effect-v4-cli.md), both verified to exist and hold substantial content, with an appropriate split (general commands vs Effect v4 CLI specifics); the cross-link between the two reference files is a sibling pointer, not a deferral chain, so it matches the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |