Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-organized, read-only review skill with a clear sequenced workflow and appropriate section structure; its main weakness is actionability, where steps are somewhat high-level and lack concrete examples of severity levels or finding format.
Suggestions
Define a concrete severity scale (e.g., critical / high / medium / low) and show an example finding format with file/line evidence to make the guidance copy-paste ready.
Tighten the vague first step "Establish the change scope" into a specific action, such as enumerating changed files from the diff before reviewing.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — "Use for correctness review of a diff, PR, or named change set" and a four-step workflow with no padding or elementary explanation, so every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps like "List findings by severity with file/line evidence" and "Call out residual risk and missing tests" give concrete direction, but "Establish the change scope" is abstract and no example severity scale or finding format is provided, leaving guidance incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered four-step sequence is present; since the skill is read-only and non-destructive, the missing-validation cap does not apply and the simple, well-sequenced workflow meets the clarity bar. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and is organized into clear sections (When to use, Non-goals, Workflow), satisfying the simple-skill exception for progressive disclosure. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |