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 tight, well-structured methodology skill that is exceptionally concise and cleanly organized with a clear sequence and validation checkpoint. Its weakness is actionability: several directives use abstract terms without concrete examples or definitions.
Suggestions
Define or give a one-line example for 'nearest affected gate' and 'narrowest layer' so the directives are executable rather than interpretable.
Add an explicit failure-feedback loop, e.g. 'If the focused proof fails, re-trace the symptom before changing more code.'
Optionally show one tiny concrete patch-shape example to ground the 'avoid cleanup, renaming, and abstraction' directive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is extremely lean with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line ('Reproduce failure first when economical', 'Avoid cleanup, renaming, and abstraction outside fix') earns its place, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The bullets give concrete directives ('Trace symptom to responsible mechanism', 'Run focused proof plus nearest affected gate') but provide no concrete examples or definitions for abstract terms like 'nearest affected gate' or 'narrowest layer', leaving key details missing per anchor 3. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence runs from reproduce → trace → change → verify → stop, with an explicit validation checkpoint ('Run focused proof plus nearest affected gate') and stopping condition, but it lacks an explicit error-recovery feedback loop that anchor 5 requires. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into a header, framing sentence, bulleted directives, and a closing stop-condition line, satisfying the simple-skill exception for anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |