Content
68%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 well-structured, concise, and provides executable scaffolding code for the core use case, with clear best-practice and limitation sections. Its main weaknesses are a missing validation checkpoint in the workflow and minor gaps in the example coverage (views XML, security CSV, model extension).
Suggestions
Add a verification step to the workflow, e.g., "Install the module in Odoo, check the logs for errors, and confirm the model appears" — this would lift workflow_clarity above 3.
Provide concrete content for the currently name-only files (a sample `hospital_patient_views.xml` and `ir.model.access.csv`) to close the actionability gap.
Add a short example for extending an existing model via `_inherit`, since it is listed in "When to Use" but never demonstrated.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely lean — concise do/don't bullets, a compact How-It-Works list, and complete but unpadded code examples — with only minor fluff ("This skill transforms your AI into an expert Odoo custom module developer"). Not 5 because of that marketing-style overview line and a few slightly explanatory bullets; not 3 because there is no extensive explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready, executable artifacts: a full folder tree, a complete `__manifest__.py`, and a complete `hospital_patient.py` model. Not 5 because the views XML and security CSV are only listed by filename with no content, and extending existing models (listed in "When to Use") has no concrete example; not 3 because the core scaffolding case is fully executable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | "How It Works" gives a 3-step sequence (Activate → Scaffold → Review) but no validation or verification checkpoint for the produced module (e.g., install in Odoo, run tests, check logs). Not 4 because checkpoints are absent rather than merely minor; not 2 because a clear sequence does exist. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/scripts/assets absent), and the single SKILL.md is organized into clear, navigable sections (Overview, When to Use, How It Works, Examples, Best Practices, Limitations) with no nested references. Not 5 because it exceeds the simple-skill line and the Examples block is fairly dense inline content that could arguably be split; not 3 because structure is good and content is appropriately self-contained. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |