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.
A well-organized, lean skill body that points to a single well-structured reference for executable config. The main gap is the absence of validation/feedback checkpoints in the CI workflow.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation feedback loop to CI Gates, e.g., 'If Detekt/Lint fails: review report, fix violation at source (do not @Suppress), re-run checks before merging'.
Inline a minimal executable snippet (e.g., the `./gradlew detekt ktlintCheck` command) so the body is copy-paste ready without opening the reference.
Clarify the pre-commit gate's verification step, such as failing the commit when formatting checks fail.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean bullet points with no concept explanation and no padding; assumes Claude knows what Detekt/Ktlint are and every line is actionable, matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete specifics like "LongMethod, LargeClass", "abortOnError = true", and "jlleitschuh plugin" are actionable, with full executable code deferred to references/implementation.md; not a 5 because the body itself has no inline copy-paste code. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | CI Gates gives a rough sequence (pre-commit locally then pipeline on PR) but no validation/feedback loop for these batch CI operations, so per the batch-operation cap it cannot exceed 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a well-signaled one-level-deep reference ([Configuration](references/implementation.md)) holding the executable details, matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |