Content
63%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 well-structured with a clear, verified four-step workflow and tidy progressive disclosure for a simple skill. Its main weaknesses are non-executable code examples (the 'run_shell:' label convention is never explained) and minor verbosity.
Suggestions
Either drop the 'run_shell:' prefix from code blocks so the shell commands are copy-paste executable, or explicitly state once that 'run_shell:' is an invocation label to strip before running.
Trim padding such as 'This hybrid approach is more reliable for creating complex project structures' and the low-value 'Log tool switches' best practice.
Add a brief error-recovery loop after verification (e.g., if the file is still absent, retry with an explicit absolute path) to lift workflow clarity toward 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with clear sections and code, but includes unnecessary padding such as 'This hybrid approach is more reliable...' and a 'Log tool switches' best practice that adds little; fits 'mostly efficient but some unnecessary explanation'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Commands are concrete but not executable as written: the 'run_shell:' prefix is an unstated convention label rather than valid shell, so examples read as pseudocode needing translation; matches 'pseudocode instead of executable code; missing key details'. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence with an explicit verification checkpoint (Step 3: test -f / test -d) and a hybrid-usage boundary (Step 4); only minor validation gaps keep it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained file under 50 lines with well-organized sections and no need for external references; the simple-skill exception applies and structure is clean. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |