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 an exceptionally lean, well-structured set of design principles with no wasted tokens and no reliance on external files. Its weaknesses are a lack of concrete, executable artifacts (no example tool schemas or sample responses) and the absence of an explicit application workflow with validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add a copy-paste-ready example of a good tool definition (JSON input schema) and a sample tool response/error payload implementing the observation and error-recovery contracts, so the principles become executable.
Present an ordered application workflow with an explicit validation loop, e.g., 1) audit current tool list for semantic overlap, 2) apply granularity rules, 3) reshape observations, 4) benchmark pass@1/pass@3 and iterate if completion rate does not improve.
Consider splitting the architecture-pattern and benchmark sections into a reference file to keep SKILL.md as a tight overview, and add an explicit trigger section aligning with the description's missing 'when' guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is composed of terse imperatives and checklists ("安定した明示的なツール名を使用する", "フェーズの境界でコンパクト化する") with no padding and no re-explanation of concepts Claude already knows — even the architecture-patterns section gives selection guidance rather than definitions of ReAct or function calling. It matches anchor 5 ("lean and efficient; every token earns its place") and shows nothing to trim that would justify a 4. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | There is some concrete guidance — the observation contract specifies exact fields (`status: success|warning|error`, `summary`, `next_actions`, `artifacts`) and the error-recovery contract lists required contents — but most rules are abstract directives ("入力スキーマファーストで絞り込んだものにする") with no example tool schemas, sample JSON responses, or copy-paste templates. This matches anchor 3 ("some concrete guidance but incomplete") rather than 4, which requires mostly executable guidance. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections are organized by design concern and the numbered lists read as steps, but there is no end-to-end process for applying the skill (no order across sections, no stop conditions, no feedback loop). Benchmarks are presented as a metrics list rather than a validate→fix→re-measure loop, so validation checkpoints are only implicit — matching anchor 3 ("sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit"). | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single self-contained file with well-organized headers and no bundle files or references, so there are no deep or broken references. It matches anchor 4 ("good structure; most content appropriately placed") rather than 5 because the body is 68 lines (48 non-blank), slightly exceeding the under-50-line simple-skill exception, and some sections (e.g., architecture patterns, benchmarks) could live in separate reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |