Content
63%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-structured, highly actionable reference with concrete conventions, contrasting good/bad examples, and a useful pre-publish checklist. It is held back by sections that restate standard REST knowledge Claude already has, minor inexecutable gaps in two of three language examples, and the absence of any progressive disclosure — everything is inlined in one long SKILL.md with no reference files.
Suggestions
Trim sections that restate standard knowledge (the HTTP method semantics table and the plain status-code meanings) down to only project-specific conventions like the BIEN/MAL contrasts and envelope format choices.
Move the per-language implementation examples (TypeScript/Python/Go) into references/ files (e.g., references/implementations.md) and keep the decision tables and format examples inline in SKILL.md.
Fix the small executability gaps: define or import the writeError/writeJSON helpers in the Go example and import IsAuthenticated in the DRF example.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Much of the body adds real value (BIEN/MAL contrasts, pagination trade-off tables, versioning deprecation timeline), but several sections restate knowledge Claude already has — the HTTP method idempotency/safety table, the full status-code meanings list (200 OK, 404 Not Found), and basic OFFSET/LIMIT SQL — fitting anchor 3's "mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation". | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is overwhelmingly concrete — copy-paste URL patterns, JSON envelope examples, and full TypeScript/Python/Go implementations — but there are minor gaps: the Go example calls undefined writeError/writeJSON helpers and the DRF example uses IsAuthenticated without importing it, matching anchor 4 rather than fully executable anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The reference is well organized with a "Cuándo Activar" section, a numbered versioning strategy, and a final pre-publish checklist ("Antes de publicar un nuevo endpoint") serving as an explicit validation checkpoint — but there is no sequenced workflow for designing a new endpoint, so it fits anchor 4 with minor validation gaps rather than anchor 5's explicit feedback loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section headers are clear, but all ~520 lines live inline in SKILL.md with no reference files at all; content that clearly belongs in separate files (the ~100 lines of per-language implementation examples, the detailed filtering/sorting reference) is inlined, matching anchor 3's "content that should be separate is inline". | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |