Content
72%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, but actionability and workflow clarity are limited by the absence of concrete commands and an explicit run→fail→fix→rerun validation loop.
Suggestions
Add concrete detection commands or heuristics (e.g. checking package.json scripts, pytest config, go test) so 'Detect the test runner' is executable.
Insert an explicit validation/retry checkpoint between running tests and reporting, e.g. 'If failures appear unrelated to the change, re-run the focused suite; only report once results are stable.'
Give one short example of choosing the 'narrowest useful suite' for a common runner to make that step actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient with no concept-explanation padding; every section (When to use, Non-goals, Workflow) earns its place and assumes Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps are concrete in intent ('Detect the repo's test runner and conventions', 'Run the narrowest useful suite') but lack specific commands, detection heuristics, or examples, leaving key execution details unspecified. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence exists but there is no validate→fix→retry checkpoint; 'Report pass/fail with commands and residual gaps' is a report-back rather than a validation gate before declaring success. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple under-50-line single-purpose skill with well-organized sections and no need for external references, qualifying for the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |