Content
92%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.
An exemplary compact skill body: concise, immediately actionable, with validation-before-apply and an explicit retry loop for the main failure mode. The only improvement space is making the diff example fully concrete or showing how to generate one, which keeps actionability at 4.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient: the body is ~33 lines, every command and step earns its place, and the one piece of explanatory text (edit_file's exact-match limitation) is harness-specific knowledge Claude doesn't already have. No filler, no explaining concepts Claude knows. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands throughout: 'git apply --check changes.patch', 'git apply changes.patch' with the '-p0' flag caveat, and a recovery step ('read_file the exact lines again, regenerate the diff'). Not a 5 because the unified-diff snippet is a placeholder skeleton (path/to/file, @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@) rather than a complete runnable example, and no command is shown for generating the diff in the first place. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint ('Validate before applying: git apply --check') and a feedback loop for error recovery ('If git apply rejects the hunk... regenerate the diff with correct context, and retry'). Despite being a batch/atomic operation, validation is present, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external references — no bundle files exist and none are needed. Sections ('Procedure', 'When to prefer this') are well-organized and the body is self-contained, which the rubric's simple-skill exception scores at 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |