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.
The body delivers a clear four-phase EDD workflow with concrete templates and executable grader examples. Its weaknesses are moderate duplication (repeated report formats and a worked example that restates earlier content), placeholder pseudo-steps in the Evaluate section, and a monolithic single-file structure with no progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicated EVAL REPORT template — show it once and have the 'Adding Authentication' example reference it rather than reprint it.
Replace placeholder lines like '[Run each capability eval, record PASS/FAIL]' with actual executable commands, and either define the /eval define|check|report commands as real scripts or explain how they are dispatched.
Split the grader-type catalogue and the full worked example into reference files (e.g., references/graders.md, references/example-auth.md) linked one level deep from SKILL.md, and add an explicit fail → fix → re-evaluate feedback loop to the workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with compact templates, but there is real duplication: the EVAL REPORT format appears twice (the 'feature-xyz' report and again in the 'Adding Authentication' example) and the 'Philosophy' section explains EDD conceptually. Anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') fits better than anchor 4 given this goes beyond minor trimming. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete eval-definition templates, real executable graders (grep/npm test commands), slash-command integration, and a storage layout give mostly executable guidance. Kept below 5 by placeholder lines like '[Run each capability eval, record PASS/FAIL]' and the '/eval define|check|report' commands that are referenced but never implemented or defined as scripts. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Define → Implement → Evaluate → Report sequence is clearly presented with PASS/FAIL recording and regression checks as checkpoints. Not 5 because the error-recovery feedback loop (eval fails → fix → re-run) is implicit rather than an explicit step. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single 237-line file with well-organized sections but no external references at all, and content that could be split (the grader-type catalogue, the full worked authentication example) is inlined. This exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception, so it falls to anchor 3 ('some structure but could be better organized'). | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |