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.
The body itself is a lean, directive-dense overview with an excellent well-signaled reference index and a concrete 10-step workflow — strong on every structural dimension in isolation. The decisive defect is the bundle: all 17 referenced files (skeletons, JSON examples, failure-mode recovery, concept catalog) are missing, which degrades actionability, breaks the error-recovery loop, and leaves progressive disclosure non-functional.
Suggestions
Ship the references/ directory: all 17 files cited in the Reference Index (solution-setup.md, buildproject-skeleton.md, common-failures.md, etc.) are absent from the bundle, breaking the skill's entire detail layer.
As a fallback, inline the minimal `BuildProject` JSON skeleton and the `.msd` dependency snippet into SKILL.md so the critical steps 1–3 remain executable even if reference files fail to load.
Add an inline validate-and-retry checkpoint after Make and after the Ant run (e.g., confirm `build.xml` was written and check `build/artifacts`) instead of delegating all failure recovery to the missing references/common-failures.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~80-line body is dense with non-obvious, high-value directives (e.g., 'The generator writes `build.xml` — it does **not** invoke Ant', 'Declaring a module in `BuildProject.parts` **does not** cause it to be built', the transitive-closure rule for `BuildMps_Group`) and never explains basics Claude already knows. The one definitional sentence ('a declarative DSL (a stack of MPS languages on top of Ant)') is necessary context for an obscure internal JetBrains DSL. Anchor 4 would require 'minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'; the only candidate is the companion-skills loading paragraph, which is functional routing instruction, not padding. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The 10-step workflow is highly concrete — specific tool name `mps_mcp_insert_root_node_from_json`, exact properties (`name`, `internalBaseDirectory`, `compactBuildScriptFileName`), the required UUID `422c2909-59d6-41a9-b318-40e6256b250f`, and the runnable command `ant -Dmps_home=/path/to/MPS …` with output location `./build/artifacts`. However, several steps defer the executable detail to reference files that do not exist in the bundle (e.g., step 3's 'the skeleton in `references/buildproject-skeleton.md`', step 1's '.msd content' in `references/solution-setup.md`), so the guidance is not fully copy-paste ready as shipped. That is a gap beyond anchor 5's 'specific examples cover the common cases', but well above anchor 3's pseudocode/incomplete level. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Common-Path Workflow is a clearly numbered 10-step sequence with real checkpoints embedded (re-run 'Load required information from file' after every `.mpl`/`.msd` change or the chunk generator throws 'class not found'; 'Make the build solution … writes `build.xml`'; artifacts land in `./build/artifacts'), plus critical directives that function as pre-flight validation (group transitive closure, always set `internalBaseDirectory`). It falls short of anchor 5 because the explicit feedback loops (fix-and-retry on failure) are delegated to `references/common-failures.md`, which is absent from the bundle, so the error-recovery loop is a dead pointer rather than an explicit validate→fix→revalidate cycle in the body. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body's structure is textbook progressive disclosure — a 'Reference Index' with one-level-deep, well-signaled 'Open X when Y' entries for 17 files, plus routed sections for other task families — which would rate 5 on design alone. But the bundle contains no `references/`, `scripts/`, or `assets/` directories at all: every one of the 17 referenced files is absent, so the entire detail layer the skill is organized around does not exist and navigation is broken. That is a larger failure than anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps', while the in-body structure and clear signaling keep it above anchor 2's 'minimal structure' and anchor 3's inline-clutter profile — a 3 reflecting that the disclosure structure is present and clearly signaled but non-functional as shipped. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |