Content
61%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 a solid, well-organized architecture reference whose strongest material — the package map, naming conventions, and import hierarchy rules — is specific and immediately usable. Its weaknesses are redundancy (the violations list and repeated suffix rules), a generic process-framework back half that restates practices Claude already follows, and the absence of any executable verification for the rules it labels 'STRICTLY ENFORCED'.
Suggestions
Delete the 'COMMON VIOLATIONS TO AVOID' section — it is the exact inverse of the hierarchy stated immediately above — and merge the duplicated platform-suffix lines (lines 27 and 34).
Trim or split off the 'Deep Analysis & Architecture Consistency Framework': keep only OneKey-specific checks (hierarchy, platform suffixes, package placement) and drop generic advice like 'Find Similar Examples' and 'Match existing code style' that Claude already does by default.
Make the import hierarchy verifiable: name the actual command or check (e.g. an ESLint import rule, madge, or a repo script) and add a feedback loop to the pre-commit checklist ('if the check fails, move the code to the package that may import it and re-run').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The first half (platform structure, core packages, import hierarchy) is lean, specific, and every token earns its place, but there is noticeable padding: the 'COMMON VIOLATIONS TO AVOID' list restates the exact inverse of the hierarchy rules directly above it, platform file suffixes are stated twice (lines 27 and 34), and the 'Deep Analysis & Architecture Consistency Framework' explains generic practice Claude already knows ('Find Similar Examples: Search codebase for similar implementations', 'Match existing code style'). This fits anchor 3 — mostly efficient with unnecessary explanation that could be tightened — rather than 2 because the core architectural content is dense and un padded. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete and specific throughout: exact package paths ('packages/core/src/chains/'), exact workspace names in the hierarchy, concrete file-suffix conventions ('.native.ts', '.web.ts'), and one executable command ('yarn why <package>'). Per the rubric's instruction-skill note, absence of code is not penalized since the guidance is actionable; the gap keeping it from 5 is that key checks have no executable mechanism — e.g. 'Check if the import creates a circular dependency' names the step but gives no command or tool to actually perform it, and the analysis protocol steps are abstract directives ('Evaluate runtime performance effects'). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Pre-Modification Analysis Protocol' provides a clear numbered sequence (scope impact, pattern consistency, architecture integrity, performance) and the 'Architecture Validation Checklist' gives an explicit pre-commit checkpoint. However, checkpoints are largely implicit for the highest-stakes rule — the 'STRICTLY ENFORCED' import hierarchy has no verification mechanism (no lint command, script, or check to run), and there is no feedback loop describing what to do when a check fails. This matches anchor 3 (steps listed but validation gaps) rather than 4, whose example pairs each step with an executable verification command; it is above anchor 2 because the sequences are well-defined, not rough. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body (~120 lines) is well-sectioned with clear headers, bold labels, and consistent formatting, and no bundle files exist so there are no broken or nested references to penalize. It fits anchor 4 (good structure, most content appropriately placed, minor organization gaps): the overview, conventions, and hierarchy are appropriately inline for a single-file architecture skill, though the generic 'Deep Analysis & Architecture Consistency Framework' (about half the body) is a candidate for a separate reference file. Not 5 because the one-level-deep reference pattern of anchor 5 is absent and the framework section dilutes the overview's focus. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |