Content
82%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.
This is a lean, high-signal instruction skill: nearly every sentence is a novel, non-obvious directive, and safety-relevant gates (authorization, credit preservation, unverified-work reporting) are explicit. Its main weaknesses are the absence of any section structure and a few directives that name a requirement without indicating how to execute it.
Suggestions
Add 3-4 lightweight section headers (e.g. Read the source, Build the continuation, Preserve credit, Verify and report) so the implicit sequence becomes navigable.
Show the concrete git mechanics for the replacement PR, e.g. the branch + cherry-pick/rebase commands used to import original commits while preserving authorship.
Give one concrete example of what 'independently verify the original failure and realistic workflows' looks like (reproduce the reported bug, run the app, exercise the user's scenario) so the verification step is executable rather than aspirational.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~280-word body assumes Claude's competence throughout — e.g. "Resolve the handoff to the actual code and current head, and account for uncommitted work" packs dense, novel guidance with zero padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not score 4 because there is no over-explanation anywhere to trim; every sentence carries a distinct instruction. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete directives dominate: "import the original commits onto a new branch and add your fixes separately", "Preserve Git authorship and existing co-author trailers", and named tool delegations ("use `modernize`", "use `file-pr`... then `babysit-pr`"). It falls short of 5 because several directives stay abstract with no example of execution, e.g. "Independently verify the original failure and realistic workflows" gives no method, and no git commands are shown for the commit import. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The paragraphs follow a coherent implicit sequence (read source → resolve handoff → build continuation → preserve credit → modernize → verify → file/babysit PR → report) with real checkpoints: "Independently verify the original failure", "State what remains unverified", "Recheck the source PR too". Not 5 because the sequence is never made explicit (no ordered steps) and verification lacks feedback-loop detail; not 3 because authorization gates ("Merge or close the original PR only when authorized") and re-check steps are present. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At ~38 lines with no bundle files, all content appropriately lives inline and nothing needs external references, which satisfies the simple-skill case. It misses 5 because the body is a single unbroken run of paragraphs under one H1 with no section headers, leaving minor organization gaps; it is well above 3 since nothing that belongs elsewhere is inlined and no references are buried. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |