Content
67%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 single-file skill: every gh command is concrete, the multi-path workflow is clearly sequenced, and error handling is addressed. Its main weakness is redundancy — title/body/label guidance is stated twice and prompt scaffolding is heavier than needed, which inflates token cost without adding capability.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the title-guidance and label-option content between the step sections and "Important Notes" — state each rule once and reference it.
Trim the AskUserQuestion scaffolding (full question/header/option blocks) to the essential prompts; Claude can construct well-formed questions from brief descriptions.
Show a realistic, fully executable `gh issue create` example (multi-label flags, escaped body) instead of the placeholder single-line form.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows (no "what is GitHub" padding) and its commands are lean, but it repeats itself: the title-length guidance appears in full in Step 2a and again nearly verbatim in "Important Notes" ("Titles should be succinct (5-10 words)"), and the label option lists are duplicated across Steps 4a and 2b. This matches anchor 3 ("mostly efficient but could be tightened") rather than anchor 4, which requires only minor trimming. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable commands are provided throughout: `gh issue create --title ... --body ... --label ...`, `gh issue list --assignee @me`, `gh issue view [number]`, a HEREDOC example, and error-recovery via `gh auth status`. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because the create command shows a naive single-line form with placeholders and the label handling (multi-select joined into one --label flag) is not fully worked out. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The process is clearly sequenced with numbered steps and explicit branching (2a/2b/2c paths), an error-handling section with recovery steps, and a checkpoint ("Always confirm the issue was created successfully by showing the URL"). It is not anchor 5 because there are no explicit validate-then-retry feedback loops (e.g. handling a failed `gh issue create` beyond the generic error section), fitting anchor 4 (clear sequence, most checkpoints present). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the body references none, so nothing dangles; the ~250-line single-file workflow is organized under clear section headers (Instructions, per-action sections, Error Handling, Important Notes) making it easy to navigate. This matches anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps) rather than anchor 5 — the skill exceeds 50 lines, so the simple-skill exception does not apply, and some of the duplicated interactive-prompt scaffolding could live in a separate reference. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |