Content
81%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 high-quality operational skill: an explicitly sequenced pipeline with unusually strong validation gates (scanned-commit pinning, unreadable-file counts, single-commit enforcement) and mostly copy-paste-ready commands. Weaknesses are minor — a stubbed agent prompt in one sub-command, a few rationale sentences that could be trimmed, and no use of reference files to shorten the main body.
Suggestions
Replace the literal stub prompt="Package: {resolved_path} ..." in /opensource package with the full packager prompt (or an explicit pointer to the Step 5 template), so every sub-command is executable as written.
Move the secondary command protocols (/opensource verify, package, list, status) into a references file (e.g. references/commands.md) and keep the main pipeline in SKILL.md, trimming the body and improving progressive disclosure.
Tighten the rationale asides (e.g. the amend/history explanation in Step 3 and "Most repos trip this on a logo or a font") to one clause each — the policy statement alone is actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and operational with no concept-teaching padding; the fold-into-commit block is defined once in Step 3 and referenced from Steps 4/5b rather than repeated. Minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed ("An amend leaves a secret that was removed from a file out of the new commit. A new commit on top would publish it in history", "Most repos trip this on a logo or a font") keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Overwhelmingly executable: copy-paste bash for staging (mkdir), the amend/fold sequence, the Step 7 gate chain (git ls-files / ls-tree / status / rev-list / rev-parse), and gh repo create, plus complete Agent prompts enumerating all 7 scan categories. Not fully executable everywhere — the /opensource package section has the literal stub prompt="Package: {resolved_path} ..." — which is exactly anchor 4's 'minor gaps'; far above anchor 3's pseudocode level. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven explicitly sequenced steps with validation checkpoints throughout: sanitizer PASS/FAIL gate, max-3 retry loop, unreadable-count gate with unknown/missing-count handling, stop conditions, and post-packaging re-scan keyed to {SCANNED_COMMIT}. For a destructive operation (publishing secrets publicly), this matches the top anchor's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized single file: commands table, per-command protocol sections, staging layout diagram, and anti-patterns, with a single clearly-signaled one-level pointer to the sibling security-review skill and no nested references. Not 5 because there are no reference files at all and ~320 lines means the sub-command protocols (verify/package/list/status) or the unreadable-files protocol could be split into a references file to keep SKILL.md lean; well above anchor 3's buried or mis-signaled structure. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |