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 content is lean, concrete, and well-structured for a simple linting skill. Its main gap is the missing verify-after-fix feedback loop for a batch operation, which caps workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add an explicit re-validation step after fixing issues (e.g., re-run shellcheck/actionlint and confirm exit code 0 before reporting done) to satisfy the batch-operation feedback-loop expectation.
Show how to run the linters across all files (not only changed ones) for cases like pre-release or full audits.
Note expected tool availability/installation briefly so a missing shellcheck or actionlint fails fast with a clear remedy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean body with no concept explanations; two tight executable code blocks and a brief handling section, with every section earning its place (only the intro line lightly duplicates the description). | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste-ready bash for both checks (find changed files, loop, run shellcheck/actionlint) plus a concrete disable-directive example, covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear (find changed files, run each linter, handle issues) but this is a batch operation over multiple files with no explicit re-validation/exit-code checkpoint after fixes, so the batch-validation cap applies. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with well-organized sections (Your Task, per-tool subsections, Handling Issues, Optional Guidance) and no need for external references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |