Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is well-structured and self-contained with a useful output template, but it is held back by redundancy between sections and abstract search guidance that lacks executable command examples. Tightening the repeated steps and showing a concrete search command would improve it.
Suggestions
Collapse the overlapping "Your Task" and "Research Process" sections into one sequenced workflow to remove redundancy.
Add at least one concrete search example, e.g. `rg -n 'class.*Page' checkouts/pdfjs/src/core/` or a glob/grep pattern per library.
Provide a light checkpoint after searching each library (e.g. confirm at least one relevant entry point was found before comparing) to make the workflow more robust.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and uses terse bullets, but "Your Task" and "Research Process" restate the same search/compare/extract steps, and the "Begin" section repeats the opening instruction. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete search roots (e.g. "pdfjs/src/core/", "pdfbox/.../pdfbox/") and a copy-paste output template, but the search steps themselves are abstract lists ("Class definitions", "Key methods") with no example commands like ripgrep invocations. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (Step 1–3) and it is a read-only task so destructive-validation loops are not strictly required, but there are no checkpoints and the only topic-determination guidance is "Ask the user if unclear". | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single self-contained file with no bundle files and no nested references, yet it is well-organized into clear sections (Your Task, Research Process, Output Format, Guidelines, Begin) that are easy to navigate. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |