Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is highly actionable with concrete commands and clean organization, but workflow clarity is held back by the absence of explicit validation/feedback checkpoints for long-running or parallel operations, and conciseness slips on a stray time-sensitive date. Adding verification steps and removing the date would push it toward top scores.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation/verification checkpoints for risky workflows — e.g. after a background task, verify the working tree with `git diff`/`git status` before reporting success.
Remove or generalize the hard-coded date in the checkpoint example ('task-abc123-2026-03-06') to avoid time-sensitive decay in the main body.
Tighten the redundant pty guidance (stated in both Prerequisites and Rules) into a single mention to improve token efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely lean and command-forward, but a time-sensitive date ('task-abc123-2026-03-06') appears outside any deprecated section and the pty rationale is repeated, so it is not fully tightened to a 3. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable terminal(...) calls, concrete flags, and copy-paste-ready command tables, matching the 'fully executable, copy-paste ready' anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step sequences are present (background: start -> poll/log -> submit -> kill), but there are no explicit validate-then-fix feedback loops for risky or parallel operations, which caps workflow clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-organized SKILL.md with clearly labeled sections, tables, and no nested/deep references; for a CLI-wrapper skill the content is appropriately kept in one navigable file rather than split. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |