Content
86%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 a tight, well-organized set of working rules with concrete validation commands and clear scoping guidance. Its main weakness is the lack of an explicit validation feedback loop and a component-creation example.
Suggestions
Add an explicit fix→retry loop after validation (e.g., 'If build or typecheck fails, fix the reported errors and re-run before proceeding').
Include one short copy-paste component example showing the expected CVA + cn() + typed-export pattern so the style rules are demonstrable, not just prescriptive.
Make the validation sequence an explicit ordered checklist (build → typecheck → conditional dashboard/frontend validation) rather than a bulleted list plus a trailing sentence.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; the project-specific downstream-impact note earns its tokens. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste build/typecheck commands, concrete file paths, and explicit rules (cn(), no any, export from index.ts) give mostly executable guidance, but no component-creation code example leaves a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Validation checkpoints are present (build, typecheck, conditional downstream validation) and there is a loose edit→build→typecheck sequence, but no explicit fix→retry feedback loop is given. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references and well-organized sections (Scope, Working Rules, Validation), matching the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |