Content
75%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 well-structured, actionable style contract with a clear activation workflow and explicit self-check checkpoints. The main gap is a dangling reference to a non-existent `references/test-cases.md` file, which slightly weakens progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Create the referenced references/test-cases.md file (or remove the dangling "See references/test-cases.md" line) so the body's single external reference resolves.
Trim the "What this skill does" section, which restates the frontmatter description and adds tokens without new information.
Add one or two more concrete Bad/Good example pairs to lift actionability, since the prose-style rules benefit from contrastive demonstrations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean, directive, and assumes Claude's competence (bullet lists of banned phrases, registers, constraints); the only redundancy is the "What this skill does" section restating the frontmatter description. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, executable guidance — specific banned phrases, named registers, control-tag syntax, a Bad/Good example pair, and a lint checklist; as an instruction-only skill the absence of code is not penalized, though examples are limited. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The flow (activate via control tags → produce prose → run the "Quality bar" self-check → apply the "Lint checklist" pass/fail gates) is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints; this is not a destructive or batch operation so the validation cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clearly headed sections, but the body references `references/test-cases.md` ("See `references/test-cases.md`") and that file does not exist — no references/scripts/assets bundle is present — a minor navigation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |