Content
87%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 concise, highly actionable, and well-structured for a single-purpose skill. The main gap is workflow clarity: the overwrite-on-rerun operation has no explicit validation checkpoint, which caps that dimension at 3.
Suggestions
Add a validation checkpoint before overwriting the existing diagrams file (e.g., verify the resolved plan path exists and the chosen diagram types are non-empty before writing), with a fix-and-retry loop.
Confirm the plan file was read successfully and skip empty/unsupported diagram categories explicitly rather than silently producing a near-empty file.
Optionally state a verification step after writing (e.g., check the mermaid fences are balanced) to close the feedback loop for this destructive re-run operation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no padding, no explaining what mermaid is, and the inlined store resolver is functional/canonical rather than explanatory, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides an executable store-resolver script, exact output-path rules, a precise content-policy format, a decision table mapping plan content to diagram type, and concrete syntax guidance, fully covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence (resolve store → output path → choose diagrams → write → report) is clear, but the destructive overwrite-on-rerun step lacks an explicit validation checkpoint, so the destructive-operation cap of 3 applies over the simple-skill exception. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single-purpose, well-organized skill with clear section headers and no external references needed; the inlined resolver is intentionally canonical, so the simple-skill exception allows a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |