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.
Concise, actionable, and well-structured with concrete commands and clear error handling. The main improvement would be trimming the environment-specific source-validation paths and adding an explicit success check.
Suggestions
Move the hard-coded /home/bfly/yunwei/... source-validation paths into a separate reference or omit them unless they are essential to this skill's core action.
Add an explicit verification step (e.g., confirm ccb clear output indicates success before reporting completion) to strengthen the workflow's feedback loop.
Consolidate the three near-identical bash examples into one parameterized example to reduce repetition.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean and executable, but the hard-coded source-validation paths paragraph is environment-specific padding that does not earn its place for the core action. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands covering bare and named-agent cases, matching the anchor for complete executable guidance. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear single-action workflow with explicit checkpoints (ask on ambiguous scope; report and stop on permission denial; do not poll), though no explicit success-verification feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, organized into intro, source-validation note, command examples, and a rules list, satisfying the simple-skills exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |