Content
43%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 an unfilled skeleton: structure and section organization are sound and token-lean, but every step, output specification, and reference is a placeholder, and the referenced bundle files do not exist. Until the placeholders are filled with the actual procedure, the skill delivers no actionable guidance.
Suggestions
Replace each placeholder step ('Step One — What to do first.', 'Step Two — What to do next.') with the actual concrete actions, commands, or code of the procedure (actionability).
Define the output section concretely — specify the actual finding/report format and what evidence to include, instead of 'Describe the expected output format' (actionability).
Add validation or verification checkpoints to the workflow (e.g., confirming findings cite real file:line evidence before reporting) and create the referenced `plays/` and `templates/` files, or remove the dangling references (workflow_clarity, progressive_disclosure).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The 26-line body contains no padding, no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and nothing to trim — every line is a bare placeholder. It fully matches the anchor 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place'; the template's lack of substance is penalized under actionability, not here. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The steps are authoring placeholders ('**Step One** — What to do first.', '**Step Two** — What to do next.') and the output section says 'Describe the expected output format' — no concrete code, commands, or executable guidance anywhere. This matches anchor 1 ('Entirely vague or abstract; only describes rather than instructs'); it cannot be 2 because even anchor 2's example gives a specific high-level hint about what to do. | 1 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A numbered 3-step sequence exists with a rough findings shape ('Cite file:line, show evidence, explain impact, provide remediation'), so a coherent scaffold is present — but the step bodies are undefined placeholders and no validation checkpoints exist. This lands between anchors 1 and 2; it is not 1 because a recognizable, ordered sequence is present, making anchor 2 ('rough sequence present but many gaps; steps poorly defined; validation absent') the best fit. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections (Steps / Output / OWASP References) are well organized and references are clearly signaled one level deep (`plays/your-play.md`, `templates/finding.md`, `templates/report.md`), but none of these files or directories exist in the bundle, so navigation is non-functional. Dangling references are more than anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps,' while the signaling and section structure are better than anchor 3's 'references not clearly signaled' — landing at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 11 / 20 Passed |