Content
76%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 actionable with concrete search commands and well-organized sections, but it presents parallel investigation areas rather than an explicitly sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add a short sequenced workflow with a validation checkpoint (e.g., 'confirm each candidate issue reproduces before reporting it').
Trim the redundant restating of categories in 'Key questions' and 'What a valid finding looks like' to reduce token cost.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and directive, though sections like 'Key questions' and 'What a valid finding looks like' partially restate the investigation areas and could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready `rg` commands for finding API endpoints, input validation, SQL queries, auth checks, and schema definitions that cover the common review cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Investigation areas and commands are listed, but there is no explicit sequenced workflow or validation checkpoint (e.g., confirm a finding is real before reporting), leaving checkpoints implicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the content is appropriately self-contained in SKILL.md with clear section headers and easy navigation, though it runs slightly over the 50-line simple-skill threshold. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |