Content
88%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.
The body delivers an exceptionally actionable, well-sequenced procedure with explicit feedback loops and concrete commands, examples, and decision tables. Its weaknesses are mild redundancy of the core thesis and a bundle inconsistency: an evidence-checking script exists in scripts/ but is never referenced (and contradicted) by the skill text.
Suggestions
Reference scripts/red_green_evidence.py from the body (e.g., in the Output Format or Reporting section, as a way to validate that a recorded evidence run contains RED_BEFORE_FIX, GREEN_AFTER_FIX, and RED_AFTER_REVERT markers), and fix scripts/README.md which currently claims the skill is "intentionally script-free".
Trim the restatements of the core thesis — the 'One-line version' section and the Overview paragraph largely repeat the opening line; cutting them would tighten conciseness without losing guidance.
Narrow the two broad 'Use when' clauses in the description ("fixing a bug", "investigating an incident") toward the proof-of-fix niche so the skill is less likely to trigger over generic debugging or test-writing skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of test frameworks or basic concepts) and every section carries real guidance, but the core thesis is restated four times (opening line, Overview, One-line version, Anti-patterns) and rhetorical asides like "This is not paranoia" and "← the whole point" could be trimmed — matching 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than the lean 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: a copy-paste bash sequence for the revert loop (cp backup, revert, run test, restore), `git log -S '<the exact line>'` for history checks, concrete test-naming examples, a decision table for unreachable code, and two worked real-world failure examples covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The loop is a clearly sequenced 5-step process with explicit validation checkpoints and error-recovery feedback loops: "If it does not fail, you have not reproduced the bug. Go back to step 1" and "If it stayed green, the test is fake. Rewrite it and repeat", plus guardrails ("Do not skip 1, and never skip 4") and a final full-suite verification step. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned with appropriately inlined core content, but the actual bundle is not navigated: scripts/red_green_evidence.py is never referenced from SKILL.md, and scripts/README.md even claims the skill is "intentionally script-free" — a minor organization gap that keeps it below the clean split-and-navigation of the 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |