Content
82%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 tight, highly actionable body with correct file conventions, scope resolution, and a clear editing workflow. The main weaknesses are the dangling reference to template files absent from the bundle and the lack of any validation/verification step after saving.
Suggestions
Fix the template reference: either bundle template.command.yaml / template.command.txt (or inline a minimal worked example of both) so the pointer in File Rules resolves.
Add a post-save verification step to the Editing Workflow, e.g. re-read the saved YAML to confirm it parses and that required keys (name, description, type) are present.
Include one complete example config (a short <slug>.command.yaml with name/description/type/argument_hint) so the 'Source Of Truth' key list becomes copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and dense with project-specific facts — file naming rules, required/optional config keys, exact scope folder paths, and an output contract — with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor; it is not a 4 because there is no over-explanation to trim. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly executable: exact file patterns ('<slug>.command.yaml', '<slug>.txt', '<slug>.py'), required keys ('name', 'description', 'type'), concrete scope paths, placeholder syntax ('{raw}', '{args.positional.0}'), and a report format. It falls short of 5 because it references 'bundled templates in template.command.yaml and template.command.txt' that are not present in the skill's bundle, and no inline example of a complete config or template is given. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Editing Workflow is a clear 6-step sequence with a meaningful checkpoint (check for an existing command, load it first, preserve unknown frontmatter keys) and an explicit reporting step. It is not a 5 because there is no post-save validation step (e.g. re-reading the saved YAML to confirm it parses) or error-recovery feedback loop, though the operation is not destructive or batch-heavy enough to trigger the cap at 3. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The ~60-line body is well organized into short, labeled sections with everything appropriately inline for a skill of this size, and only a single one-level reference outward. It is not a 5 because that outward reference ('the bundled templates in template.command.yaml and template.command.txt') points to files that do not exist in the bundle, leaving navigation to the detailed material broken. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |