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 well-structured and highly actionable with concrete commands and code patterns, and it correctly points to real one-level-deep reference files. Its main weaknesses are duplicated content between the body and references and a lack of explicit validation checkpoints in the pre-commit workflow.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the body against references/rules/code-quality.md: keep a concise summary in SKILL.md and move the full Lint Fixes / Language Requirements / When to Comment / Development Principles detail into the reference.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the Pre-Commit Workflow (e.g. 'Run yarn agent:check --profile commit; only commit if it reports 0 errors; if it fails, open the reported log path and fix before re-running').
Trim the legacy ESLint warning paragraph or move it into the fix-lint reference so the overview stays lean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with concrete code blocks, but the body re-inlines substantial material (Common Lint Fixes, Language Requirements, When to Comment, Development Principles) that is duplicated in references/rules/code-quality.md, so it could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands (yarn agent:check, npx oxlint ...) and copy-paste-ready good/bad code patterns, but the examples are illustrative patterns rather than complete runnable scripts, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A pre-commit sequence is implied via 'yarn agent:check --profile commit' and a checklist exists, but there is no multi-step workflow with explicit validation checkpoints in the body; the only checkpoint is the command 'passes'. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good section structure with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references to real files (references/rules/code-quality.md, references/rules/fix-lint.md) plus bullet previews; the main gap is the duplicated inline content that arguably belongs only in the references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |