Content
80%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 exceptionally concise and well-structured for a simple instruction-only skill, with concrete actionable steps and good section organization. Its main weakness is workflow clarity, where explicit validation checkpoints and a retry-on-missing-evidence feedback loop are absent.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint between capture and report (e.g., 'If no observable evidence was captured, retry with adjusted inputs before reporting').
Clarify what counts as sufficient evidence and how to escalate when the entrypoint cannot be exercised.
Optionally include a minimal runnable example command for one surface type (CLI/API/UI) to lift actionability from 4 to 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and free of padding; no concepts Claude already knows are re-explained, and every line (When to use, Non-goals, Workflow) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps are concrete and specific ("Identify the real entrypoint (CLI binary, API, UI)", "Capture outputs, exit codes, logs, or screenshots"); as an instruction-only skill the lack of copy-paste code is acceptable, leaving only minor gaps versus fully executable guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four steps are clearly sequenced, but validation checkpoints are only implicit ("Report evidence and remaining uncertainty") with no feedback loop to retry when evidence is missing, matching the anchor for sequence present but checkpoints missing. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed, yet organized into clear, well-labeled sections (When to use, Non-goals, Workflow); per the simple-skill guideline this qualifies for a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |