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 highly actionable with executable code, anti-patterns, and verification checkpoints throughout. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: a large API reference and detailed CSP config live inline in SKILL.md rather than being split into clearly signaled reference files.
Suggestions
Move the @tauri-apps/api/path function tables and the full CSP/devCsp JSONC block into separate reference files (e.g. PATH_API.md, CSP.md) and link to them one level deep from SKILL.md.
Consolidate the async/sync distinction into a single place; the 'Note on Async' section restates content already in the path tables.
Present the IPC/binding regeneration flow as a numbered workflow with an explicit validate-then-proceed feedback loop to match the cargo check/test checkpoint pattern.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and actionable with little concept padding, but the 'Note on Async' section restates info already in the path tables and could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste-ready TypeScript, JSONC, and bash snippets, function tables with examples, and BAD/GOOD anti-pattern pairs cover the common cases fully. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Explicit verification checkpoints appear (CSP smoke-test in dev and release, cargo check + cargo test export_types, inspect binding diffs before commit), but the IPC/CSP flows are not presented as a single numbered feedback-loop sequence. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-sectioned single-file body, but the path API reference tables and the detailed CSP policy are inlined rather than split into one-level-deep reference files, and no bundle references are signaled. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |