Content
75%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, lean, and gives concrete tool-level guidance with a clear sequenced workflow and validation checkpoint. Closing the validation feedback loop and removing the duplicated query_id rule would push it higher.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation feedback loop: if validate_sql fails, fix the SQL and re-validate before recommending, which would lift workflow_clarity.
Consolidate the two near-identical query_id-preference rules in the Rules section into one to remove redundancy and tighten conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's SQL competence with no concept over-explanation; it is not a 5 because the Rules section contains two near-duplicate query_id-preference bullets that could be consolidated. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It names exact tools with concrete arguments (e.g. the full ask_user_question option JSON, collect_sql_optimization_evidence params, and index-type guidance like "bloom_filter for high-cardinality equality filters"), but full tool signatures are not all spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The pre-flight branching and 5-step Workflow are clearly sequenced with an explicit validate_sql checkpoint; it falls short of 5 because there is no explicit fix-then-revalidate feedback loop when validation fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-sectioned overview with one clearly-signaled one-level-deep reference (references/system-query-log.md via skill_resource); it is not a 5 because that reference belongs to an external skill's bundle rather than being split from this skill's own content. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |