Content
83%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 lean, highly actionable read-only exploration skill with concrete URIs, tool syntax, token-cost hints, and a complete worked example. Workflow clarity is capped by the absence of explicit checkpoints or feedback loops beyond the stale-index note.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback/checkpoint step to the workflow, e.g. 'If query returns no processes, broaden or rephrase search_query before falling back to reading source files directly.'
Note that this is a read-only, non-destructive workflow so the destructive-validation cap does not apply, but consider a single explicit 'verify staleness before deep-diving' checkpoint to lift workflow_clarity above 3.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient: every section earns its place with concrete resource URIs, token-cost hints, and example outputs, with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance: concrete resource URIs, tool call syntax (query({search_query:...}), context({name:...})), a stale-index remediation command, and a complete worked example covering the common case. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered workflow and checklist exist, but this is a read-only exploration skill so no destructive/batch validation applies; still, there are no explicit checkpoints/feedback loops (e.g., 'if query returns nothing, refine the search term') beyond the single stale-index note. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with well-organized sections (When to Use, Workflow, Checklist, Resources, Tools, Example) and clearly signaled resource/tool references; no bundle files are present so it relies on inline structure, with only minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |