Content
93%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 exemplary project-specific skill: it leads with a mental model and decision table, gives complete executable code for both placement and driver paths, and offloads depth to two real, well-signaled reference files. The one gap is validation — Workflow A's verification is informal and Workflow B has no build/verify checkpoint, so a wrong shape type or registration mistake is only caught by the user noticing.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification checkpoint to Workflow B (e.g., 'Step 4: build and run; confirm the part renders in Content — a missing registration or wrong shape type shows nothing, so check the driver is registered in Startup.cs').
Turn Workflow A's Step 3 into an explicit feedback loop: 'If the shape doesn't move, the shape type in the rule is wrong — confirm it via shape tracing, correct the rule, and re-check' instead of the one-line hint 'Wrong type → no rule matches'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with OrchardCore-specific information (shape types, differentiator rules, position semantics, editor grouping modifiers, precedence) delivered almost entirely via tight tables and code, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the mental-model definitions are framework-specific and necessary. Every token earns its place, matching anchor 5 rather than 4, which expects over-explanation to trim. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides a copy-paste-ready placement.json rule, a complete executable TextFieldDisplayDriver using the real OrchardCore API (Initialize<T>, GetDisplayShapeType, TryUpdateModelAsync, Location), exact registration snippets, and a decision table for driver-vs-placement — specific examples covering the common cases, matching anchor 5 rather than 4's 'minor gaps'. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Both workflows are clearly sequenced and Workflow A includes a verify step ('Run the site... Use ?display debug shapes or the template's shape tracing to confirm the shape type. Wrong type → no rule matches'), but the recovery loop is only implied and Workflow B ends at driver registration with no build/run validation checkpoint — fitting anchor 4 ('most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') rather than 5's explicit feedback loops. Neither workflow involves destructive or batch operations, so no cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body keeps overview, two workflows, and a quick reference inline at appropriate depth, while pushing detail to two real, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference files (references/placement.md and references/drivers.md, both present and well-organized) referenced both at point of use and in a References section — matching anchor 5 rather than 4, which expects organization gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |