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.
A tight, highly actionable instruction skill: every rule is concrete, backed by a worked Bad/Good subject example, and closes with an explicit verify step. The only gap is the absence of a recovery path when post-commit verification fails.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body is lean with zero padding: it assumes Git competence ("Inspect staged, unstaged, and untracked changes") and every sentence carries instruction, e.g., "Cut filler and vague verbs" and "Blank arguments mean infer the target, never commit everything by default". | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: an explicit Bad/Good commit-subject pair, specific rules ("Never add AI attribution..."), and a defined required output ("Return the commit hash, message, committed scope, and any remaining changes"). As an instruction-only skill, the absence of code is not penalized. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Scope → Message → Commit-and-verify sequence is clear and includes an explicit verification checkpoint and a stop-and-ask error path, but there is no recovery loop for what to do if verification fails, so it matches 'most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' rather than the feedback-loop anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At under 50 lines with no need for external references, the well-organized Scope / Message / Commit-and-verify sections fully satisfy the simple-skill guideline; no bundle files exist to reference. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |