Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is exceptionally concise and well-organized with a genuine pre-commit validation feedback loop, but it lacks a concrete commit-message example and a sequenced step-by-step workflow. Adding an example and a numbered sequence would lift actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example commit message showing the conventional-commit format and ≤72-char subject line so the guidance is copy-paste ready.
Express the commit workflow as a numbered sequence (e.g. branch check → stage by name → commit → re-stage/retry on hook modifications) rather than scattered rules.
Optionally note how to verify the result (e.g. confirm hooks passed, show the final commit) as an explicit final checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and rule-driven with no concept explanations or padding; every line conveys repo-specific guidance Claude does not inherently know, matching 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place'. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete executable constraints (conventional commits, subject ≤72 chars, stage by name, never --no-verify) but no worked commit-message example or template to follow, so it stops short of 'fully executable ... copy-paste ready'. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | An explicit validation/recovery loop is present (re-stage and retry if hooks modify files; fix root cause if mypy fails), but the commit workflow itself is expressed as scattered rules rather than a clear numbered sequence with checkpoints. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, and its two sections (## Rules, ## Pre-commit hooks) are well-organized, so per the simple-skills note progressive disclosure can score 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |