Content
78%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-structured skill body: an efficient overview page with a sequenced workflow, an explicit security validation checkpoint, crisp MUST/MUST-NOT constraints, and exemplary progressive disclosure through a condition-loaded reference table pointing to ten real files. The residual gaps are minor — illustrative rather than fully runnable example code, no explicit error-recovery loop in the workflow, and a few trimmable footer/example lines.
Suggestions
Add a brief feedback loop to the Core Workflow for the security checkpoint (e.g., "If a checklist item is unresolved, update the design in specs/{feature}_design.md before implementing"), which would lift workflow_clarity to the validation-loop anchor.
Make the three-perspective example fully self-contained or trim its commentary — the backend snippet depends on undefined db/ProfileResponse and the frontend on apiFetch, so either define them in one line or label the snippet as an illustrative pattern.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is tight: one-line workflow steps ("Validate input on both client and server"), terse MUST DO / MUST NOT DO lists, and a compact reference table — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimming opportunities keep it below anchor 5: the footer attribution/links and parts of the three-perspective example (e.g., explanatory security bullet commentary) are not strictly needed. It is clearly above anchor 3, which requires "some unnecessary explanation". | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance dominates: executable-looking FastAPI/TypeScript snippets ("@router.get(\"/users/{user_id}/profile\", dependencies=[Depends(require_auth)])", "if (!Number.isInteger(userId) || userId <= 0) throw"), a named design artifact path ("specs/{feature}_design.md"), and a step tied to a real file (references/security-checklist.md). It is not anchor 5 because the example code is illustrative rather than copy-paste runnable (undefined `db`, `apiFetch`, `ProfileResponse` context) and only one common case is exemplified — matching anchor 4's "concrete code with minor gaps". | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence (Gather requirements → Design → Write technical design → Security checkpoint → Implement → Hand off) with an explicit validation checkpoint ("Run through references/security-checklist.md before writing any code; confirm auth, authz, validation, and output encoding are addressed") and per-component testing ("Test each component as you build"). Anchor 5 would require explicit feedback loops for error recovery (e.g., what to do when the checklist fails) and richer checklists; anchor 3 would require missing or only implicit checkpoints, which is not the case. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a genuine overview that splits detail correctly: a "Load When" reference table signals ten one-level-deep files (all of which exist in references/ with no nested cross-references between them), and only a minimal representative example is inlined. This matches anchor 5's clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references and easy navigation; anchor 4 would require organization gaps that are not present. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |