Content
75%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, domain-specific skill that demonstrates strong organization and clear conditional reference loading. Its main strengths are the precise workflow classification, comprehensive guardrails that encode real Effector anti-patterns, and thoughtful progressive disclosure via reference files. The primary weakness is the absence of inline executable code examples — even one or two sample/attach snippets would significantly boost actionability — and the lack of explicit validation checkpoints in the workflow.
Suggestions
Add 1-2 inline executable code snippets showing a basic sample wiring and an attach composition to make the 'Build solution' step more immediately actionable.
Add an explicit validation/verification step in the workflow, e.g., 'Run lint checks against eslint-plugin-effector rules before finalizing output' to close the feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient and avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows. The Glossary Alignment section, while useful for terminology consistency, includes some definitions (like what a Unit or Reducer is) that border on unnecessary for Claude. The Guardrails section is dense but each rule earns its place. Minor tightening possible in the glossary. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, specific guidance: clear workflow steps, explicit naming conventions ($store, eventHappened, someFx), specific API preferences (sample over forward/guard), and a defined output contract. However, it lacks executable code examples — no sample/attach/split snippets are shown inline, which would make it more immediately actionable. The guidance is specific enough to act on but not copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step workflow (classify → load references → build solution → produce output) is clearly sequenced and logical. The reference-loading step has clear conditional triggers. The build-solution step has a sensible ordering. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops (e.g., 'validate the model topology before wiring' or 'if lint checks fail, revisit step 3'). The output contract partially serves as a checklist but lacks explicit verification steps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references 9 separate reference files with clear conditional loading rules, which is excellent progressive disclosure design. References are one level deep and well-signaled with specific trigger conditions. However, since no bundle files were provided, we cannot verify these references actually exist. The SKILL.md itself is well-structured with clear sections (Workflow, Defaults, Glossary, Guardrails, Legacy Handling) that serve as a navigable overview. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |