Content
75%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-crafted instruction-only skill body: concrete folder schemes, commands, and artifact rules with a clearly sequenced 13-step workflow and explicit validation gates, and no time-sensitive or padded content. The residual gaps are minor — some redundant restatement of the tasks.md and issue-eligibility rules, no spec.md/plan.md skeletons, and no failure-recovery loop for the final checks.
Suggestions
Add a short spec.md and plan.md skeleton (header list with one-line descriptions) so the artifact format is copy-paste ready rather than inferred from the required-sections prose.
Deduplicate the repeated rules — 'Never add tasks.md' appears three times and the simple-bug exclusion is stated in both When To Use and GitHub Issue Sync — to tighten conciseness.
Add one feedback line to the final workflow step (e.g., 'if any check fails, fix and re-run before handoff') to close the validation loop in workflow_clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, project-specific policy with no padding of concepts Claude already knows — every rule ("Do not create tasks.md", "Never self-authorize issue creation", "Prefer no new test to a low-value implementation-coupled test") is non-derivable judgment. Minor trimming is possible: "Never add tasks.md" appears three times and the issue-sync eligibility rules are stated twice ("Complex bugs only; simple style defects and obvious local logic fixes should not get issues" repeats the earlier skip list), which is why this is not 5. Not 3 because the repetition is minor and no section explains background Claude would already know. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable throughout: exact folder patterns ("docs/features/<goal>/", "docs/issues/<goal>/", "docs/architecture/<goal>/"), exact commands ("pnpm run format, pnpm run i18n, pnpm run lint, pnpm run typecheck"), exact labels ("[feature]", "[bug]"), and a concrete PR convention ("include Closes #NNN in the PR body"). Not 5 because there are no skeleton examples of spec.md or plan.md — the required sections are named but never shown — leaving the artifact format to be inferred; not 3 because the guidance far exceeds high-level hints and is directly followable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 13-step workflow is clearly ordered with explicit gates: "Resolve every [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] marker before implementation", "Complete the planned implementation before deciding whether to author new test code", and the final "Run pnpm run format... before handoff" checklist. Not 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., what to do when typecheck or lint fails at step 13, or when a validation gate fails) — the checkpoints are pass/fail statements without retry guidance. No destructive or batch operations are involved, so no cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), so the skill is a single well-sectioned file with descriptive headers (When To Use, Classify The Goal, Required Artifacts, Artifact Boundaries, GitHub Issue Sync, Workflow, Implementation-First Validation, Documentation Hygiene) and no nested references. Not 5 because at 166 lines, some self-contained policy blocks (e.g., the full GitHub Issue Sync rules or the Implementation-First Validation test-selection criteria) could live in one-level-deep reference files to slim the always-loaded body; not 3 because what is inline is well-organized and nothing that clearly belongs in a separate file is inlined. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |