Content
73%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.
This is a strong operational skill: an unambiguous sequenced workflow with real validation checkpoints, deep hard-won pitfalls, and a genuine diagnostic script backing the decision tree. Its weaknesses are length-driven — repeated explanations of the same failure mode and inlineable reference material — and a few key steps specified as instructions rather than executable code.
Suggestions
Explain the 127.0.0.1-redirect failure once (in the "Why" section) and reference it elsewhere in a clause, cutting three restatements across Overview, Fallbacks, and the Dashboard section.
Move the worked-example detail of pitfalls 7/9/10 (and the long dashboard front-door guide) into references/ files, keeping one-line summaries plus pointers in SKILL.md.
Replace the step 7 field list and step 10 fragment with a complete copy-paste Python block that exchanges the code and writes both token files in the same block (which pitfall 16 already mandates).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The pitfalls are dense, non-obvious operational knowledge that earns their tokens, but the 127.0.0.1-callback failure is restated four times (Overview, "Why the Built-in OAuth Flow Fails", "Cheap First Fallbacks", "Preferred Front Door"), and several pitfalls (e.g. 15's "This is the OAuth 2.0 spec, not a provider quirk") explain protocol background Claude already knows. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than the 4-anchor's minor trimmable instances. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete throughout: exact curl probes, a redaction-piped env grep, full RFC 7591 registration JSON, exact token-file schemas with perms and filename sanitization regex, and a runnable diagnostic script. It falls short of 5 because the PKCE generation (step 5), token exchange (step 7), and smoke-test (step 10) give formulas/field lists and a partial Python fragment rather than copy-paste-ready code for the two most security-critical operations. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 11 numbered steps have explicit validation checkpoints — verify state (CSRF, step 7), stash-and-verify code_verifier across turns, and "smoke-test the token BEFORE asking the user to reload" (step 10) — plus an escalation order (built-in fallbacks → dashboard → manual) and a full error-recovery decision tree in pitfalls 7/9/10 with recovery order and a script that prints the branch. This matches the 5 anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops for error recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The bundle matches the body's references: both cited files (scripts/diagnose-oauth-mcp.py, references/stripe-mcp-oauth-revocation.md) exist, are one level deep, and are clearly signaled in "Quick Reference Files" with when-to-use guidance. Structure is good, but the ~370-line body inlines large sections (17 pitfalls, the dashboard front-door guide) that could live in separate reference files, which is the 'minor organization gaps' of the 4 anchor rather than the well-split 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |