Content
86%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 instruction-only skill body: terse, assumption of competence, concrete status definitions with evidence types, and clean organization into inputs and record. The only meaningful gaps are the absence of an example record template and declarative rather than explicitly ordered multi-party workflow steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and declarative ('A code line proves this status only'; 'The lead resolves every finding') with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching the 5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout: status definitions name their suited evidence ('A test for logic; browser, keyboard, layout or live output for runtime behaviour'), inputs are enumerated, and record placement is specified. It misses 5 only because no example record or template is provided to make it copy-paste ready; it is well above the 3 anchor's incomplete/pseudocode level. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear — trigger context, who writes the record, inputs, the record itself, and where it goes — with checkpoints like 'The lead resolves every finding' and 'After any later commit, revisit the rows that commit affects'. It falls short of 5 because the multi-party steps (lead, reviewer, helper) are stated declaratively rather than as an explicitly ordered process with validation of the finished record. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with well-organized sections ('## Inputs the lead passes', '## The record') and no need for external references, meeting the simple-skill exception for a 5. The only path mentioned (.claude/rules/workflow.md) is a repo rule file providing context, not a broken bundle reference. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |