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 content is a tight, well-sequenced workflow with concrete commands, exact file paths, and an explicit approval checkpoint. Minor actionability and error-recovery gaps keep it just short of a perfect score.
Suggestions
Replace the `--title "..."` placeholder with guidance on deriving the title from the draft, and specify how `<slug>` is generated.
Add a brief error-recovery note for `gh issue create` failures (e.g., re-check auth, retry).
Consider showing a minimal example draft filename to make the slug convention concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and step-structured with no padding or re-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line carries actionable instruction. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete commands (`gh issue list --search`, `gh issue create --title "..." --body-file …`) and exact template/label values, but the `--title "..."` placeholder and undefined `<slug>` derivation are minor gaps from copy-paste readiness. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps with an explicit user-approval gate and an iterate-until-satisfied feedback loop; minor gap is the absence of error recovery guidance if the `gh issue create` command fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short, single-purpose skill with no external references needed; sections (Input, numbered Steps, Submit) are well-organized and self-contained, satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |