Content
75%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-organized, efficient body that gives concrete, actionable direction for matching a repo's integration pattern, with a clear workflow and checklist. The gaps are minor: validation guidance is high-level rather than mechanical, and no executable discovery commands are provided.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean bullet-driven checklist with no background explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Only minor trimmable redundancy remains, e.g., "The point is to match the host repository's pattern" and "Use this when the job is to add a repo-native integration surface, not just a generic HTTP client" largely restate the description. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Instruction-only but concrete: "Inspect at least 2 existing connectors/providers", explicit per-step inspection maps, three concrete reference directory shapes, and a checkbox checklist. It stops short of fully executable guidance — no example commands or search patterns for discovering registry hooks or test fixtures — so it does not reach anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 4-step sequence (learn house style, narrow the target, build in layers, validate against the source pattern) with the Quality Checklist as an end checkpoint. Step 4 lacks explicit validation mechanics or a fix-and-retry feedback loop, which keeps it below the anchor 5 with explicit validation steps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-sectioned single-file skill with no nested or dangling file references (verified: no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle files exist). At ~110 lines with per-language reference shapes it sits just above the compact-skill case where organization alone would merit 5; some shapes or the checklist could live in a reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |