Content
65%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 a strong, executable cookbook: complete code for every capacity operation, useful SKU/state reference tables, and clear LRO handling. Its main gaps are a missing import in the flagship create example, no validation step before destructive operations, and no use of reference files to split the 263-line monolith.
Suggestions
Add FabricCapacityAdministration to the imports in the "Create Fabric Capacity" example so it runs without NameError, and add a note that later snippets depend on the client/resource_group/capacity_name defined in the setup and create sections.
Add a verification step before destructive operations, e.g. get the capacity and confirm its name/state before begin_delete, and check for active workloads or dependent items before begin_suspend.
Move the full SKU table, capacity-state table, and the less-common operation examples (check name availability, list SKUs) into a references/ file (e.g. references/operations.md) and link them from SKILL.md to reduce the inline footprint, and delete the empty "When to Use" filler section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean, code-first cookbook that assumes competence — no explanations of what Azure or Python libraries are. It falls short of 5 due to the duplicated authentication/setup block in "Create Fabric Capacity" and the vacuous "When to Use" section ("This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.") that earns no token. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Nearly every operation (create, get, list, update, suspend, resume, delete, check name, list SKUs) has copy-paste-ready executable code with real parameter values. Not a 5 because the create snippet uses FabricCapacityAdministration without importing it (NameError if run), and later snippets (get/update/suspend/delete) reference resource_group and capacity_name variables that are only defined in an earlier section. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Operations are clearly organized with a dedicated LRO section explaining .result() vs. manual polling, but this is a flat reference cookbook rather than a sequenced workflow, and the destructive begin_delete (and billing-relevant suspend) has no validation or verification step. Per the judging guidelines, destructive operations without validation cap workflow clarity at 3; it is above 2 because steps and LRO checkpoints are otherwise explicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section headers are clear and there are no broken or deeply nested references (no bundle files exist), but all 13 operation examples plus the 11-row SKU table and capacity-state table are inlined in a single 263-line SKILL.md. Content that would fit a separate reference file is inline, matching anchor 3; not 2 because structure and navigation are good, and not 4 because nothing is offloaded to reference files. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |