Content
65%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.
A tight, well-structured scaffolding procedure that respects token budget and organizes its short content cleanly. Its weaknesses are executable completeness — the scan command, trigger choice, and secrets check are left as placeholders or vague directives — and missing validation before commit.
Suggestions
Replace the "[Command]" placeholder with one or two concrete examples per automation type (e.g., `run: yarn test` for tests, `run: yarn lint` or a specific scanner invocation for security scans) so the core step is copy-paste ready.
Make Step 2 executable by specifying how to check, e.g. `gh secret list --repo <owner>/<repo>`, and add a YAML validation step before commit (e.g., run `actionlint .github/workflows/<workflow-name>.yml` or `yarn workflow-lint`).
Give guidance for the [Trigger] placeholder (e.g., pull_request for scans, push to default branch for releases) and note that `branches: [master]` should match the repo's actual default branch.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~45-line body is lean with zero padding — no explanations of what GitHub Actions is, just prerequisites, a 3-step procedure, and a YAML template, so it sits at the 5 anchor. However, time-sensitive version information is inlined rather than in a deprecated/old-patterns section (pinned SHAs "actions/checkout@3d3c42e5... # v7.0.1", "actions/setup-node@8207627... #v7", "ubuntu-26.04", "node-version: 20"), which the guidelines say to penalize, dropping it to 4. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The YAML template is structurally concrete (real pinned actions, "corepack enable", "yarn install --immutable") but the key executable content is parameterized away — "[Workflow Name]", "[Trigger]", and especially the "Run Scan" step's "[Command]" carry no examples (e.g., yarn test, yarn lint, a scanner command), and Step 2's "Ensure any required secrets or environment variables are available" gives no method or command. This matches the 3 anchor: concrete guidance present but incomplete with missing key details, below the 4 anchor's fully executable guidance. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 3-step sequence (create file → verify dependencies → commit) is clearly ordered, but checkpoints are missing or implicit: Step 2 says to "Ensure any required secrets or environment variables are available" with no way to check (e.g., gh secret list), and nothing validates the generated YAML or the workflow's behavior before committing. This matches the 3 anchor (steps listed, validation gaps); it is not 4 because the single verification step is a vague sentence rather than an explicit check. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundles exist), and the body is well organized into Prerequisites and a numbered Procedure with clear step headers — the simple-skill exception in the scoring notes allows 5 for well-organized sections alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |