Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and well-structured into clear sections with a strong testing checkpoint, scoring well on workflow clarity and progressive disclosure. Its main weakness is actionability: the UX rules are principle-level directives rather than concrete, verifiable instructions.
Suggestions
Make the UX rules more verifiable, e.g. 'Confirm every screen reacts to the same quit/escape keys' rather than the abstract 'Keyboard behavior must be consistent across screens'.
Add a concrete definition of done or checklist that ties UX and test rules together so it is clear when a change is ready to ship.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean at ~37 lines with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (it assumes familiarity with Bubbletea model/update/view), so every token earns its place per the score-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Test rules are concrete ('Add update tests for new key transitions') but the UX rules are principle-level directives ('should preserve context predictably') that are not directly verifiable or executable, fitting the score-2 anchor of some concrete guidance with incomplete or missing details. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a simple single-purpose checklist skill whose flow (change -> apply UX rules -> add tests -> ship only with tests) is clearly sequenced with a final gating checkpoint, so it qualifies for a 3 under the simple-skills allowance. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and is organized into three well-labeled sections (When to Use, UX Rules, Test Rules), satisfying the score-3 condition for simple skills with just well-organized sections. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |