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.
A tight, well-structured skill body that delegates the heavy detail to a single source-of-truth task file and keeps only actionable protocol, gates, and a checklist inline. The main gap is the absence of an explicit fail→fix→rerun feedback loop around the quality gates.
Suggestions
Make the gate feedback loop explicit: state that on lint/typecheck/test failure Claude should fix the issue and re-run until green before marking tasks complete.
Note that 'ACs' in the trigger guidance is unexpanded in the body; a one-word gloss (acceptance criteria) would keep it actionable for readers unfamiliar with the SDC vocabulary.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and dense: terse protocol steps, explicit gate commands, and a checklist with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable gates ('npm run lint', 'npm run typecheck', 'npm test') and specific branch/commit constraints are present, but the core implementation work is deferred to an external task file rather than fully inlined. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered protocol and a 'Post-phase verification' checklist with explicit gates provide good sequencing and checkpoints, though the validation feedback loop (fail → fix → re-run gates) is implied rather than spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a short, well-organized single-purpose skill the body is appropriately structured into focused sections with a clear one-level pointer to the task SOT; no bundle files exist to over- or under-reference. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |