Content
88%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 body is a well-structured, highly actionable multi-step workflow with strong validation checkpoints and feedback loops. It is slightly above the simple-skill threshold, which keeps progressive disclosure and conciseness at a 4 rather than a 5.
Suggestions
Move the Agent 3 testing-framework list (Vest, Vitest+RTL, MSW, Cypress) into a references/ file referenced from Step 4 to improve progressive disclosure and tighten the body.
Trim a few rationale clauses (e.g. 'don't ask the developer to re-type what's already there') to push conciseness toward a 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is step-based and lean with executable commands and no concept over-explanation, but a few rationale lines (e.g. 'don't ask the developer to re-type what's already there') and the Agent 3 framework list could be trimmed, keeping it just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready commands ('git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD', 'gh issue view <NUMBER> --json title,body,labels -q ...', 'git checkout -b <BRANCH-NAME>'), exact question wording, and a concrete story-file template that cover the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven steps are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (gh-failure fallback, a parallel-agent validation step with a 'significant findings' checklist, uncommitted-change warning, developer confirmation before write), satisfying the destructive/batch validation requirement. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the single self-contained file is well-organized into numbered step headers, but at ~143 lines with inlinable detail (Agent 3's framework list, the story template) it sits at 'good structure, minor gaps' rather than the auto-5 reserved for sub-50-line simple skills. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |