Content
93%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 is a model of a lean, single-purpose skill: two unambiguous workflows, copy-paste executable commands, and a complete flags table with zero padding. The only gap is that the fix-regressions loop does not explicitly say to re-run the scan to confirm the score recovered.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body contains no concept explanations and no padding: a one-line summary, two scenario sections, and a command table, each line instructive. This matches anchor 5 ('lean and efficient; every token earns its place') and is clearly above anchor 4, which requires trimmable over-explanation. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste ready commands ("npx -y react-doctor@latest . --verbose --diff") are given for both workflows, and the flags table ("--verbose: Show affected files and line numbers per rule", "--diff: Only scan changed files vs base branch") explains every option. This matches anchor 5's fully executable, common-case-covering guidance. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Both workflows have clear sequences and a validation checkpoint ("Run ... and check the score did not regress", "If the score dropped, fix the regressions before committing"), but the fix-then-rerun feedback loop is implied rather than explicit. This sits at anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints; minor validation gaps'), just below anchor 5's explicit feedback loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, needs no external reference files (none exist in the bundle), and is organized into clearly headed sections. Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline this matches the top anchor; it is not anchor 4 because there is no content that should have been split out. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |