Content
72%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 and largely actionable with concrete commands and a clean structure, but the workflow for a batch/state-changing operation lacks validation checkpoints, capping workflow clarity, and the Example section demonstrates no actual resolution.
Suggestions
Add a validation/feedback step to the workflow, e.g. after closing, re-run `acc commitments` to confirm the closed items are gone and retry on failure.
Complete the Example section with an actual worked close (a sample `acc_act(...)` call and the resulting state) instead of only restating the user request.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean ("Routing sugar over the two MCP verbs — no logic lives here.") and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; only minor phrasing could be trimmed, so it sits just below the maximally efficient anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, near-executable commands (`acc commitments` and the full `acc_act(...)` call with parameters) with only minor gaps from placeholder substitution; the "Example" section, however, shows only a user request and no executed resolution. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–4 are clearly sequenced, but closing commitments is a batch/state-changing operation with no validation or verification checkpoint (no confirm-the-close / re-list / retry loop), so workflow clarity is capped at 3 per the rubric. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple, under-50-line skill with no need for external references and clear section headers (When to Use, Example, Limitations); per the rubric's simple-skill exception that warrants a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |