Content
86%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 concise, well-structured process skill with explicit sequencing, validation requirements, and a release checklist. The main gaps are the absence of any concrete commands or example fixtures and an implicit rather than explicit fix-and-revalidate loop on validation failure.
Suggestions
Include one small concrete example of the 'review query parameters or fixtures' mentioned in the runtime-boundaries section (e.g. a sample fixture shape for a boss-phase-change or empty-inventory state) so that guidance is executable rather than named.
Make the validation feedback loop explicit: after 'Run focused unit tests, type/lint checks, production build', add 'If any check fails, fix and re-run before proceeding to the playthrough'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is entirely lean — "Consume authoritative contact events; do not infer physics outcomes from visual state" and similar directives add only what Claude wouldn't know, with zero concept explanations or padding. Every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is directive and specific — numbered slice order (movement → combat verb → enemy → reward → zone transition) and named validation checks ("Run focused unit tests, type/lint checks, production build, and a real playthrough"). Not 5 — no commands, code, or example fixtures are given, even for items it names like "review query parameters or fixtures"; not 3 — far more concrete than high-level hints or pseudocode. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence (production contract → vertical slices → runtime boundaries → validate) with explicit validation steps and a verification checklist ("Verify a fresh start, saved continuation, loss/retry, one complete objective..."). Not 5 — the error-recovery feedback loop is only implicit; "Report known baseline failures separately from new failures" is a reporting checkpoint, not a fix-and-revalidate loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections and no external references needed — the body cites no bundle files and none exist in references/, scripts/, or assets/, so per the rubric's simple-skill note this warrants a 5 with well-organized sections alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |