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 content is well-structured, actionable, and appropriately concise for a simple drafting skill, with a clear template and a verification checklist. It could be strengthened by adding one fully worked example and trimming the redundancy between the template, questions, and component bullets.
Suggestions
Add one complete worked `/goal` example line to push actionability toward anchor 5.
Consolidate the Shape template, the four questions, and the component bullets to remove restated slots and improve conciseness.
Make the Check list an explicit ordered pass/fail gate (e.g., "if any item fails, revise before returning") to strengthen the validation checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the Shape template, the four questions, and the component bullets restate the same slots, a minor redundancy that keeps it at anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a copy-paste template, concrete slot definitions, and specific rule examples ("`bun test packages/auth` exits 0"), but lacks a single fully worked example goal line, fitting anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence (answer questions in order, compress to one line, run the Check list) is clear with an explicit validation checklist and an error-recovery loop (Rule 6), but the drafting workflow is not a risky multi-step operation, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files are needed for this single-purpose skill, and the body is organized into clear, well-signaled sections (Shape, Rules, Check), meeting the simple-skill exception for anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |