Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, concrete, and well-organized with good examples and clearly signaled external references. The main gap is workflow_clarity: the commit-message workflow lists steps but lacks an explicit self-check/validation checkpoint before the message is finalized.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step to the Workflow (e.g., step 5: verify the message against the Quick Rules — ticket present for behavioral changes, subsystem omitted when a ticket is present, suffix in a separate trailing paragraph) before finalizing.
Include a brief 'Verify before committing' checkpoint that re-checks the subject and body against the Source-of-Truth doc so errors are caught locally rather than by SafePush/Patronus.
Consider a short error-recovery note for when a commit message fails SafePush/Patronus validation, forming a validate -> fix -> retry feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient throughout; no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and every section (Quick Rules, Examples, Anti-patterns) earns its place. Not score 2 because there is no unnecessary explanation to tighten. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance: exact label list (tests, cleanup, refactor, ...), exact forbidden prefixes (WIP, fixup!, squash!, amend!), and two complete example commit messages. Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, the absence of code is not penalized for an instruction-only skill whose guidance is actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered Workflow (review diff -> motivation -> subject -> body) is a clear sequence, but there is no explicit self-validation/checkpoint step before finalizing the message; the only validation mentioned (SafePush/Patronus) is external and not part of the workflow. Capped at 2 per the missing-checkpoints anchor, not 3 which requires explicit validation steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with clearly signaled one-level-deep references (the 2_Commits.md source-of-truth doc and the YouTrack article), no nested/deep references. No bundle files exist in references/scripts/assets, so scoring is based on organization, which is strong. Not score 2 because references are clearly signaled rather than buried inline. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |