Content
88%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 well-structured, highly actionable style contract with concrete rules, examples, and a validation lint checklist. Its main weaknesses are minor redundancy in the opening summary and a dangling reference to a test-cases file that is not bundled.
Suggestions
Trim the 'What this skill does' summary so it does not restate the prohibition lists that follow, reducing redundancy.
Either bundle `references/test-cases.md` so the closing reference resolves, or remove the dangling 'See references/test-cases.md' line.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean rule-based content that assumes Claude's competence, with minor redundancy between the 'What this skill does' summary and the expanded prohibitions that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete do/don't lists, specific positive constraints (prefer declarative sentences, strong verbs over adverbs), named registers with characteristics, a manual lint checklist, and bad/good examples make the guidance fully actionable for an instruction-only skill. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The single action is unambiguous with a clear sequence (activate via prepend line, optional control tags, produce prose, run lint checklist, fix and re-check), and the lint checklist provides an explicit validation checkpoint with a fail-the-output feedback loop. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with appropriate inline core rules and one clearly signaled one-level reference; minor gap is that the referenced `references/test-cases.md` is not present in the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |