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.
An efficient, highly actionable skill body with executable examples and clean structure. The only gap is an explicit validation/retry loop in the workflow, though the operations are read-only so this is minor.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback step to the workflow, e.g. 'If process_call returns 403, run process_allowed to confirm the process is permitted before retrying'.
Show one example of interpreting a process_call response (success vs. error) so Claude knows what to expect from a failed call.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: tight parameter tables, minimal complete bash examples, and no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Both tools ship copy-paste-ready bash commands with concrete argument examples and typed parameter tables, covering the common call and permission-check cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear three-step sequence (check allowed, inspect docs, call) with implicit error guidance via the 403 note, but no explicit validate-then-retry feedback loop, so it sits just below the 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed, organized under clear section headers (process_call, process_allowed, Workflow, Guidelines); per the simple-skills note this earns a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |