Content
86%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.
A tight, well-structured skill body that gives Claude exactly the tool names, slugs, and trigger examples needed to query Sentry without over-explaining. The main gap is the absence of a concrete example MCP tool invocation with arguments.
Suggestions
Add one or two example MCP tool invocations showing argument usage (e.g., a sample `mcp__sentry__search_issues` call with org/project/query/date_range) to lift actionability from 4 to 5.
Frame the read flow as a short explicit sequence (identify the question → pick the tool → scope with org/project slugs → run query → summarize) to make the workflow fully sequenced.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — a compact tool table, fixed slugs, and example prompts — with no padding explaining what Sentry or MCP is; every section earns its tokens. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete MCP tool names with purposes, fixed org/project slugs, an explicit do-not-use tool, and example queries are actionable, but no example tool invocation showing arguments is provided, leaving a minor gap toward full executability. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | As a read-only single-purpose skill it needs no destructive-operation validation, and the single action (call MCP tools with org=expensify, project=app) is unambiguous, but the guidance is not framed as an explicit sequenced workflow. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references, yet organized into clear sections (When to Use, Sentry MCP, Prerequisites, Available MCP Tools, Example uses), meeting the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |