Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A lean, well-organized reference skill that delegates executable detail to verified one-level-deep references and gives concrete named-concept guidance. Its only gap is the workflow's validation step, which lacks an explicit fix-and-revalidate feedback loop for XML manipulation.
Suggestions
Expand the Common-Path Workflow's validation step into an explicit feedback loop, e.g., '6. Validate with mps_mcp_check_root_node_problems; if problems are reported, fix the cited node roles/properties and re-validate before proceeding.'
Add a one-line error-recovery note in the Critical Directives (e.g., 'If mps_mcp_check_root_node_problems reports a wrong-role or missing-cardinality error, consult references/rules-and-pitfalls.md, fix, and re-validate.') to close the validation feedback loop.
Consider noting in step 6 what to inspect on validation failure (rootElement cardinality, smodelAttribute macro placement, property name asymmetry) so the retry path is concrete rather than implicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: directives are terse (e.g., 'XmlProlog is optional (0..1). Omit it entirely when no prolog is needed.') with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the anchor-3 'every token earns its place.' | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, specific guidance — named roles (document, rootElement, content, smodelAttribute), named concepts (XmlFile, PropertyMacro, LoopMacro), and an exact validation command (mps_mcp_check_root_node_problems) — with executable JSON blueprints clearly delegated one level deep to json-blueprints.md, matching anchor 3 for a reference skill rather than the abstract/pseudocode anchors. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The six steps are clearly sequenced with an explicit validation step (step 6: mps_mcp_check_root_node_problems), but for XML/document manipulation the rubric requires an explicit error-recovery feedback loop ('if errors: fix and re-validate'), which is only implicit here, capping the score at anchor 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a well-structured Reference Index; each reference is one level deep, clearly signaled with 'open when…' guidance, and all four referenced files (concept-catalog.md, json-blueprints.md, rules-and-pitfalls.md, language-dependencies.md) exist, matching the anchor-3 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references.' | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |