Content
81%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, lean operational skill: concrete commands, a clear layered workflow with explicit validation, failure-to-fix mapping, and a sensible default file shape. Remaining gains are minor — deduplicating the build-preference rule and tightening the curl probe step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the "tuist xcodebuild build" preference is stated in both Core Rules and Workflow step 5, and the Completion Checklist echoes Core Rules — minor duplication that could be trimmed, so it does not fully meet the "every token earns its place" anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly executable guidance: concrete commands ("TUIST_SKIP_UPDATE_CHECK=1 tuist xcodebuild build -scheme <TargetName> -configuration Debug", "bash -n run-menubar.sh", "tuist generate --no-open") and an explicit file-placement map, with the minor gap that the backend-probe step ("Use curl to verify endpoint shape") gives no concrete command. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered bottom-up sequence (confirm Tuist ownership → probe backend → models/client/store → views → launch ergonomics) with an explicit validation matrix of per-change-type commands, a failure-patterns-to-fix-direction recovery section, and a completion checklist — matching the top anchor rather than 4, whose checkpoints have minor gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the ~100-line body is well-sectioned with cohesive, appropriately placed content, but at this length the rubric's 5-without-references exception (under 50 lines) does not apply and there is no reference navigation, leaving minor organization headroom. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |