Content
92%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 a lean, well-sequenced workflow with concrete commands, file paths, labels, and an explicit user-approval checkpoint before submission. Its only weaknesses are small actionability gaps: the draft filename slug is undefined and the `gh issue list --search` command lacks its query argument.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~70-line body is lean with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, no filler, and every section carrying actionable content ('Search for relevant code...', specific template paths, exact label values), matching anchor 5 ('lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place'). Not 4 because there is no over-explanation to trim — the intro, rules, and bilingual block template are all operationally necessary. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable guidance dominates: template file paths (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml`), a ready `gh issue create --title "..." --body-file .qwen/issues/draft-<slug>.md` command, exact labels (`type/feature-request`, `status/needs-triage`), and a copy-paste collapsible-block snippet — matching anchor 4 ('mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'). Not 5 because of the minor gaps: `<slug>` is never defined, `gh issue list --search` is given without its query argument, and no example title/draft is shown; not 3 because the guidance is genuinely executable, not pseudocode. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps (Classify → Investigate → Read template → Draft → Review → Submit) with an explicit validation checkpoint — 'Present the draft. Iterate on feedback until the user is satisfied. Do not submit until the user explicitly approves.' — and a feedback loop on the draft, matching anchor 5 ('clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'). Not 4 because the approval gate before the risky outward-facing action (issue creation) is fully explicit, not implicit. No destructive/batch-operation cap applies, and the approval checkpoint is present regardless. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a short, single-purpose skill with no bundle files present; nothing in the body needs to live in a separate file, and the body itself is well-organized under clear ## / ### headers matching each workflow step. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance ('under 50 lines with no need for external references, progressive disclosure can score 5 with just well-organized sections') and the ~70-line self-contained body with zero inline bloat, this fits anchor 5's intent: easy navigation, everything appropriately placed. Not 4 because there is no organization gap — no content that should be split out, and all internal references (template paths, `gh` commands) are to files/tools, not to missing bundle documents. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |