Content
68%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 is a well-organized senior-backend SOP with concrete conventions and real reference files, but it inlines sizable technical rule blocks and omits explicit validation feedback loops for destructive/batch operations. Adding verification checkpoints and offloading more rules to the existing references would raise the score.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation steps to each procedure (e.g. run regression tests after a migration, verify DTO compatibility after a refactor) to provide feedback loops for destructive/batch operations.
Move detailed guardrails and SQLAlchemy/Alembic syntax rules into the reference files, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview pointer.
Reference the existing standards.md from the 'Base de Conocimiento' section so all bundle files are reachable and discoverable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient role/SOP/guardrails content that does not re-explain basic programming concepts, with only minor padding ('para mantener este prompt ágil', heavy bold emphasis) that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete file-path conventions (e.g. 'domain/entity.py', 'repositories/[nombre]_repository.py', 'session.execute(select(Model))') and a clear layer pipeline, but lacks full copy-paste executable code examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Three clearly sequenced procedures exist, but workflows involving destructive/batch operations (migrations, soft-delete enforcement) lack explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops, which caps workflow clarity per the rubric. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with one-level-deep references to real bundle files (architecture-rules.md, database.md, testing.md); however, substantial technical rules are inlined in the body and standards.md is present but unreferenced. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |