Content
93%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.
Excellent content architecture: a lean orchestration body with concrete API names and a complete checked example one level deep. The only meaningful gap is the absence of an error-recovery loop after the verification step in the workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body is dense and lean with no padding and no re-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every sentence delivers framework-specific guidance (lifecycle ordering, assignment helpers, discovery paths). | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Every named API is real and verified in the bundle — assignTableAPIs, assignPrototypeAPIs, initTableInstanceData, resetTableInstanceData, constructTableAPIs, tableFeatures — and the referenced plugin-example.md contains a complete, checked, copy-paste-ready implementation covering the common case, plus concrete node_modules inspection paths. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step implementation workflow is clearly sequenced with an explicit verification step ('Verify the advertised state, options, methods, and resets on a constructed table') and a common-failures checklist, but there is no explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop telling Claude what to do when verification fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that keeps the bulk of detail (full example, guardrails, API discovery) in a single clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference file (references/plugin-example.md) that exists in the bundle, with external links limited to declared prerequisite sibling skills. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |