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 exemplary lean, well-sequenced instruction-only skill: concise, logically ordered, with a validation step and an explicit fallback for version mismatches. Its main weakness is actionability — the steps describe intents without a single concrete command, file name, or example of how to query Context7 or run the owning package checks.
Suggestions
Add concrete specifics to key steps, e.g. which manifests/lockfiles to inspect (package.json/package-lock.json, requirements.txt/pyproject.toml, go.mod/go.sum) and how to resolve the installed version.
Include an example of the check step, such as the owning package's test/lint command to run after the change, or a one-line example of retrieving version-scoped docs from Context7.
Add a brief instruction for the failure loop when the package checks fail (fix and re-run) to close the last workflow validation gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is eight lean lines with zero padding: nothing explains concepts Claude already knows, and every phrase ("smallest compatible change", "preserve established project patterns") adds actionable signal. This matches the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps name concrete intents ("Inspect the project manifest and lockfile", "Run the owning package checks") but include no commands or examples — no manifest file names, no how-to for querying Context7, and no example check command — matching the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details' anchor rather than the 'mostly executable' level. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five steps are clearly sequenced with a validation checkpoint ("Run the owning package checks and report any behavior that still requires runtime verification") and an explicit fallback branch for unavailable APIs, but there is no fix-and-re-run loop when checks fail, matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references (none exist in the bundle), and the body is well organized as a numbered list plus a closing fallback note; per the rubric's simple-skill guideline this earns a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |