Content
77%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 richly detailed, highly actionable diagnostic skill with a well-sequenced workflow and explicit validation checkpoints. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: the body repeatedly links to reference files (reading-responses.md, diagnostic-queries.md) that do not exist in the bundle, leaving navigation broken and forcing the reader to rely on inline prose.
Suggestions
Add the missing references/reading-responses.md and references/diagnostic-queries.md files to the bundle (or remove the links) — the body points to them multiple times but neither exists, so the documented navigation dead-ends.
Move the bulkier inline material (the full known-cause catalog or the cross-SDK parity table) into a reference file to shorten SKILL.md and tighten conciseness from a 4 toward a 5.
Inline one or two representative HogQL query templates (e.g. the survey shown vs sent comparison) so the skill stays actionable even when the diagnostic-queries.md reference is unavailable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense with high-signal domain knowledge Claude lacks (SDK source paths, internal pipeline, parity table) and it avoids explaining basics, but several prose passages (e.g. the two-implementation wait-period explanation and the reply style guide) run long and could be trimmed. Anchor 4 ("efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed") fits better than 5 because not quite every token earns its place across ~285 lines. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance — specific endpoints ("GET /api/projects/<id>/surveys/<sid>/"), the HogQL helper signature "getSurveyResponse(<index>, '<questionId>')", activity-log URLs, and grep targets ("frontend/src/scenes/surveys/"). It stops short of 5 because the actual query templates and response-reading formats are deferred to references rather than given inline, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The "Debugging workflow" is a clearly sequenced 7-step process with explicit validation checkpoints — "Disambiguate none vs fewer" ("This single check redirects most investigations correctly"), step 2b, "Confirm with events," and "confirm with one targeted query" — and the "Before you call it an SDK bug" section is a 4-gate validation checklist for a risky conclusion. This matches anchor 5 (explicit validation steps plus a checklist for a complex process). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure and signaling are good — SKILL.md acts as an overview with clearly marked one-level-deep markdown links to references/reading-responses.md and references/diagnostic-queries.md — but those referenced files are absent from the bundle, so the navigation is broken. Per the guideline to score against the actual bundle structure, dangling references cap this at 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |