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.
The body is lean, well-structured, and action-oriented with executable commands and clear validation gates, with only minor gaps in the fallback's concreteness and the absence of a specific diagnostic-driven recovery loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is roughly 30 lines with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the G1 rules table and each section are lean and every token earns its place, matching the anchor for lean and efficient content. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste ready commands ('uv run python {baseDir}/scripts/lint.py ...') and concrete rule specs (specific function names, grep pattern, output schema), matching the anchor for mostly executable guidance with minor gaps; not a 5 because the fallback ('run parse_meta_plan in a Python REPL') lacks exact code and G2 describes internals rather than a Claude action. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The single action (run the linter) is unambiguous with G1/G2 as validation gates and a fallback recovery path, matching the anchor for a clear sequence with most checkpoints present; not a 5 because there is no specific 'if diagnostic X, do Y' loop beyond the generic fallback. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections (G1 rules, G2 dry-run, Usage, Output, Fallback) and a single one-level reference to the real bundle file scripts/lint.py with no nested references, matching the simple-skills allowance for a 5 on well-organized short content. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |