Content
71%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 content is a well-structured, actionable audit playbook: concrete rg commands, a phased workflow with evidence and confidence checkpoints, and an explicit output contract. Its weaknesses are mild redundancy across the three passes over failure modes and a fully monolithic layout with no progressive disclosure — the report schema and failure-pattern details would serve better as one-level-deep reference files.
Suggestions
Move the JSON report schema and the detailed failure-pattern sections into one-level-deep reference files (e.g., references/report-schema.md, references/failure-patterns.md) and signal them clearly from SKILL.md, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview.
Consolidate the triple coverage of failure modes (12-layer table, failure-pattern sections, quick diagnostic questions) into one canonical catalogue plus one triage table to reduce repetition.
Add an explicit validation feedback loop to the workflow, e.g., 'findings with confidence < 0.6 must be re-verified against logs or a second evidence source before reporting'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and earns its place: compact tables for the 12 layers and severity model, symptom lists, and a copy-pasteable rg block, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5: the same failure modes are covered three times (12-layer table, failure-pattern sections, quick diagnostic questions) and the ~30-line report schema is inlined, so some tightening is possible. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives executable guidance: six annotated rg commands for anti-pattern search, a four-phase workflow with concrete inputs/outputs per phase, a documented finding record (symptom, mechanism, source layer, evidence file:line, confidence), and a default code-first fix order. Not 5: evidence-gathering details like log collection and confidence calibration remain abstract, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The audit is clearly sequenced (スコープ → エビデンス収集 → 障害マッピング → 修正戦略) with required evidence references (ファイル:行) and a 0.0–1.0 confidence rating acting as validation checkpoints. Not 5: there is no explicit feedback loop (e.g., re-verify findings below a confidence threshold before reporting them), and no output-verification step after the report is produced. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized with clear headers, but the skill is a single ~250-line file with no references/, scripts/, or assets/ — everything, including the 30-line JSON report schema and five detailed failure-pattern sections, is inlined. Not 4: content that would naturally live in one-level-deep reference files (report schema, failure-pattern catalogue) sits inline in SKILL.md. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |