Content
78%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 progressive-disclosure index — lean, correctly split across two real one-level-deep references, with unambiguous topic-to-file navigation. Its weakness is that it is purely an index: no quick-start content or code is inlined, so the skill provides no immediately actionable guidance without opening a reference file.
Suggestions
Add a minimal quick-start section in the body (e.g., the import snippet plus one small working Chart example) so the skill is actionable before any reference file is opened.
State a short usage sequence, e.g., 'Read references/charts.md for the API patterns before writing chart code; consult references/charts-accessibility.md whenever the chart must support VoiceOver'.
Surface the import-check convention ('verify the file imports Charts before using Chart, BarMark, or ChartProxy') in the body so the one validation checkpoint isn't buried in a reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~12 lean lines: a guide-skill note, attribution, and a two-row reference table. There is no padding, no explanation of what Swift Charts is, and every token earns its place — a direct match for anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The References table gives concrete pointers (specific real file paths mapped to topic clusters), but the body itself contains no executable guidance — no quick-start snippet, no code, no example; an agent must open references/charts.md before it can act. This sits between anchor 3 (some concrete but incomplete guidance) and anchor 4, closer to 3 since nothing in the body is directly actionable. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Navigation is unambiguous — each topic cluster maps to one clearly-labeled file — which supports a high score under the simple-skill exception. It falls short of 5 because no process is stated: there is no instruction to read the main reference before writing chart code, no ordering between the two files, and no mention of the import-check or validation conventions that only appear inside the references. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Scored against the actual bundle: two real one-level-deep reference files (charts.md, 560 lines; charts-accessibility.md, 117 lines) are both cited in a clearly-signaled topic-to-file table, with all detail offloaded and nothing inlined that belongs in a reference. This matches anchor 5 — clear overview, well-signaled references, easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |