Content
86%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 concise, well-structured, and offers a clear actionable workflow with validation-minded checkpoints. It is slightly less than fully executable in a few abstract verification steps, but for an instruction-only skill it is strong.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~16-line body is lean and directive, assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations of git/PRs/issues), and every line carries actionable guidance, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete procedural guidance ('Read AGENTS.md and CONTRIBUTING.md', 'identify the release timestamp, then look for open issues created or substantively updated afterward', 'Search related issues and PRs in all states, including gate-closed contributions') with minor gaps where steps stay abstract ('Trace the relevant code and git history', 'Verify the claimed contract'). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence (read docs → identify release window → bounded inventory → select → verify → present) with implicit validation checkpoints ('A proposed solution is a lead, not a diagnosis', 'Distinguish fixed on main, released on the affected line, and merely proposed', 'report truncation if it affects coverage'), but no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A self-contained skill under 50 lines with no bundle directories and well-organized sections (heading, prose, bulleted verification list), plus clearly signaled one-level cross-skill links ([fix-issue], [review-issue]), matching the simple-skill exception for a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |