Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is admirably lean and well-organized for a simple instruction skill, but its guidance stops short of fully actionable specifics and the verification checklist is not wired into an explicit feedback loop.
Suggestions
Name the shared contract in rule 4 (e.g. link or identify the contract file/type) and add a minimal concrete example of a thin adapter so the guidance is copy-paste ready.
Turn the Compatibility Checklist into an explicit feedback loop: "Run each check; if any fails, fix the adapter and re-run all checks before considering the change complete."
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean throughout — terse bullet rules and a checklist with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, so every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Rules 1 and 2 give concrete specifics ("parse input, call API/tool, return" and the `store/server/mcp` Go paths), but rule 4's "Reuse a shared contract" leaves the contract unnamed and no executable example of a thin adapter is shown, leaving key details missing. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Compatibility Checklist supplies verification items, but the numbered Boundary Rules are principles rather than a sequenced process and there is no explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop, so checkpoints are present but incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references (none of references/scripts/assets are present), and is organized into clearly labeled sections (When to Use, Boundary Rules, Compatibility Checklist), meeting the simple-skill bar for full marks. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |