Content
53%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 well-sectioned and documents inputs, outputs, and the underlying AssetDatabase.DeleteAssets behavior, but it is undermined by a non-executable example (string placeholder for an array parameter, 'any' type in the table), redundant input sections, and the absence of any verification step for a destructive batch operation.
Suggestions
Fix the example to match the array schema, e.g. "paths": ["Assets/Textures/old.png"], and correct the Input table type from 'any' to 'string[]'.
Add an explicit validation step for the destructive operation: recommend using assets-find to confirm paths exist first, and instruct to check response.Errors and report failures before considering the deletion done.
Deduplicate the 'Inputs' bullet list and 'Input' table into a single section and trim the generic stdin/input-file boilerplate.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but has clear tightenings: the intro paragraph restates the frontmatter description, the 'Inputs' bullet and the 'Input' table duplicate each other, and the generic save-to-file/stdin/heredoc boilerplate is only marginally relevant to a single string-array parameter. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | A concrete CLI command is provided, but the example is not executable as written — '"paths": "string_value"' passes a string where the input schema requires an array of strings, and the Input table lists the type as 'any', contradicting the schema. This is 'concrete guidance but incomplete / missing key details' rather than mostly-executable. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence (find assets first, then delete, refresh automatic) is present and the response fields (DeletedPaths, Errors) are documented, but this destructive batch operation has no explicit validation step such as checking response.Errors or confirming the paths exist before deletion — the rubric caps workflow clarity at 3 for destructive/batch skills without validation. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized with clear headers and no nested or dead references (no bundle files exist to reference), and the content is appropriately inline for a single-tool skill. Minor organization gaps — duplicated Input sections and inconsistent heading levels (### Troubleshooting nested under How to Call) — keep it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |