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.
A well-structured orchestration skill: deterministic platform detection, genuinely additive RevenueCat-specific decision rules, explicit scope boundaries, and a real verification checklist. The only flaw is minor redundancy in the platform-file listing between sections 1 and 3.
Suggestions
Remove the five-line platform-file list in section 3 — section 1's detection rules already name the exact file to read per platform ('→ read platforms/<x>.md'), so a single line like 'Read the platform file chosen in step 1' would replace it.
Clarify or drop the Expo note in rule 1 ('If expo is also a dependency, note it as an Expo project') — as written it flags the project but doesn't say what to do differently, so either state the consequence (e.g., use the expo config plugin path in platforms/react-native.md) or let the platform file handle it.
Consider merging the 'The SDK must be configured first' bullet into the intro's scope-boundary sentence, since both already point the reader to integrate-revenuecat and the bullet mostly restates the precondition.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence: every bullet in 'Shared concepts' is RevenueCat-specific knowledge (entitlement identifier vs product ID, 'active' vs 'all', listener vs polling, configure-first) rather than concepts Claude already knows, with zero fluff. The only trimmable content is the duplicated platform-file list — section 1's detection rules already end in '→ read platforms/<x>.md' for each platform, and section 3 repeats all five paths — which is a minor instance of redundancy that keeps it just below the 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The guidance is fully executable without being code-heavy: detection gives exact markers to look for ('package.json has a react-native-purchases entry', 'pubspec.yaml exists at the project root', 'build.gradle(.kts) applies com.android.application'), a deterministic priority order ('pick the first match, from top to bottom'), and a concrete recovery path ('If still ambiguous, ask the user'). Per the rubric's instruction-skill note, the absence of inline code is not penalized since the implementation detail is deliberately delegated to clearly-named per-platform files and the body's own instructions (detection, decision rules, verification) are all directly executable. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence (detect platform → apply shared concepts → implement via platform file → verify) with an explicit validation gate: 'Do not claim the gate works until' followed by three concrete checkpoints (both user states behave correctly, entitlement change updates UI without restart, identifier matches the dashboard). This is not a destructive/batch operation, so no cap applies, and the checklist plus the ambiguity-recovery path matches the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is exactly the overview-plus-detail pattern the rubric rewards: a ~45-line body holding only shared cross-platform concepts and routing, with one-level-deep, well-signaled references to platforms/ios.md, platforms/android.md, platforms/kmp.md, platforms/flutter.md, and platforms/react-native.md stated both in the detection rules and in section 3. Scope boundaries are also cleanly delegated to sibling skills ('it does not cover purchasing (see revenuecat-purchase-flow) or auth (revenuecat-identify-user)'). | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |