Content
78%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 well-structured instruction skill: concise, clearly sequenced workflows with explicit gating, and clean progressive disclosure into real reference files. Main improvements are tightening minor redundancy and adding a couple of post-action verification checkpoints.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated "do not deep-analyze every issue every day" guidance into one location to remove redundancy.
Add an explicit verify step in execute mode (e.g. confirm a posted reply or created project item landed correctly) before appending the Execution Receipt.
Tighten the high-level Step 4 "inspect the most relevant repo docs and code" with a concrete heuristic for which docs/code to open.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, directive body that assumes Claude's competence and avoids explaining known concepts; only minor redundancy (the "do not deep-analyze every issue every day" rule appears in both Step 1 and the Quality Bar). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete routing rules, enumerated allowed actions, explicit file paths, and mode-selection logic give mostly executable guidance; a few steps like "inspect the most relevant repo docs and code" remain high-level. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Report (Step 1–6) and execute (Step 1–3) flows are clearly sequenced with explicit approval gates ("no explicit decision, no action") serving as validation checkpoints for the batch/destructive execute actions; minor gaps in post-action verification. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview body with four well-signaled, one-level-deep reference links (cursor-and-files, discussion-rubric, reply-grammar, report-template), all of which exist as real files; easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |