Content
96%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.
An exemplarily lean, fully executable security-review workflow with strong validation gates and error-recovery paths at every decision point. The only notable gap is that the sole external reference (the shared Security Rubric, central to Step 5) is not present at its stated path in this bundle, making that critical navigation unverifiable.
Suggestions
Verify that ../_shared/security-rubric.md actually ships alongside the skill (it is absent from the bundle); if the shared layout is not guaranteed, move the rubric into the skill (e.g., references/security-rubric.md) so the path always resolves.
Consider briefly enumerating the nine rubric categories inline (one line each) so Step 5 remains actionable even if the external rubric file fails to load.
The findings-table template could name the allowed severity values (e.g., low/medium/high/critical) to make the report format fully self-contained.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and purely procedural: numbered steps, concrete gh/git commands, and a report template, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padded sections. Every line advances the workflow, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Every step gives copy-paste-ready commands (gh pr view, gh issue view with --jq filter, gh pr checkout, git diff main...HEAD --name-status, mktemp/clone sequence) plus a concrete findings-table template and a prioritized file-triage list. Placeholders like <number> and OWNER/REPO are appropriately parameterized, and the common cases (PR URL vs issue URL, matching vs mismatched repo, >30 files) are all covered. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six steps are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and error-recovery feedback loops: "Continue only when this returns one PR number... If it returns zero or more than one, stop and ask for the PR URL", PR-number verification before Step 2, repo-match comparison in Step 2, base-branch detection in Step 3, and stop conditions for empty diffs and absent security surfaces. The >30-file triage ordering acts as a checklist for the complex case. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview with exactly one well-signaled, one-level-deep reference ("Read the canonical [Security Rubric](../_shared/security-rubric.md)"), and no content that should be split off is inlined. However, the referenced file does not exist in the evaluated bundle (no references/ or ../_shared/ file is present), so navigation to the core rubric cannot be verified, keeping it below the clear-navigation anchor 5; it remains above anchor 3 because the reference is clearly signaled and placement is otherwise appropriate. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |