Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A tightly written, well-structured instruction skill with concrete templates, an explicit procedure, and a fully worked example. The only gap is that the destructive refusal lacks an explicit in-skill verification checkpoint, leaving the safety gate implicit.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the Procedure (e.g., a numbered step 'Count the code family via refactoring and confirm it disappears; if it only relocates complexity, keep the feature') before the refusal is committed, so the destructive refusal has an in-skill verify gate.
Make the safety/rollback condition a labeled checkpoint rather than prose: e.g., a 'Gate: refuse only if product sentence survives AND deletion prize is real' step with a keep/refuse branch.
For destructive refusals executed via greenfield-clean-breaks, state an explicit post-deletion verification (tests still pass, callers all migrated) as part of the workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean throughout with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (spine, procedure, templates, ladder, worked example) earns its place and assumes competence. Not 2 because there is no padding or unnecessary context to tighten. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | A copy-paste-ready decision template with explicit fill-in fields, a six-step procedure naming concrete candidate types and deletion prizes, and a fully worked social-sign-in example populating every field. Not 2 because the guidance is concrete and instantiated rather than abstract or pseudocode. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The procedure is well sequenced with a safety gate ("Keep the feature when the user loss is load-bearing"), but the refusal deletes a code family (destructive) and the verification checkpoint is implicit and partly delegated to the refactoring skill rather than an explicit validate/retry step. Capped at 2 per the destructive-operation rule rather than 3. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained file organized into well-labeled sections, with one clearly signaled one-level-deep optional pointer to a narrative article. No bundle files exist, and the structure is appropriate for a single-file skill. Not 2 because organization is clean and the lone reference is explicitly signaled and shallow. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |