Content
70%Reviews 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, self-contained workflow with an explicit verification checkpoint and actionable shell commands. Its main weaknesses are mild explanatory padding and Python examples built on non-standard tool wrappers rather than executable code.
Suggestions
Trim explanatory restatements of what `ls -la` and `list_dir` output mean, since Claude already knows these.
Replace or clarify the `list_dir`/`run_shell` wrapper calls with either real executable Python (e.g. subprocess) or clearly-labeled tool-call pseudocode so the examples are unambiguously actionable.
Add a brief error-recovery note for when `find` returns multiple or no results, to strengthen the verification feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with concrete commands, but several lines explain what Claude already knows (e.g. "This reveals files in the immediate context..." and what `ls -la` confirms about permissions/size), which could be trimmed. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The bash commands (`find . -iname ... 2>/dev/null`, `ls -la ...`) are concrete and copy-paste ready, but the Python examples rely on non-standard `list_dir`/`run_shell` wrappers that read more like pseudocode than executable code. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence with an explicit verification checkpoint (Step 3) and a tied-together complete example; the guidance to only proceed after verification provides the required validation feedback loop. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single, self-contained, single-purpose skill with well-organized sections (When to Use, Steps, Example, Pitfalls, Tools) and no bundle files; per the simple-skill guideline, well-organized sections warrant a top score when no external references are needed. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |