Content
81%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 highly actionable, well-sequenced expert skill body: concrete commands, strict diagnostic/fix protocols with validation gates, and clearly signaled one-level-deep references. Its main weaknesses are redundancy — the pattern bank re-covers the anti-pattern table's symptom→cause ground — and inlined detail (budget plan tables) that its own text defers to external docs, which costs tokens and dilutes organization.
Suggestions
Merge 'Banco de patrones recurrentes' with 'Anti-patrones recurrentes': keep the table's symptom→cause one-liners and move only the verification-order steps (the genuinely new content) into a single section, or into references/copilot-resilience.md, eliminating the duplicated symptom→cause mappings.
Move the Budget Gating detail (gate signature, bucket invariants, plan-defaults pricing table) into a reference file or defer entirely to the already-cited PR-2 CONTRACT.md, keeping only the anchor and the agent_kind='copilot' invariant in SKILL.md.
Consider moving the F0-F11 phase map and learnings index into a reference file, keeping only the routing table row that points to learnings/F{N}-*.md, so SKILL.md stays a lean diagnostic entry point.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and almost entirely project-specific (registries, anchors, ratchets, phase learnings) with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows — but it can be tightened. The 'Banco de patrones recurrentes' section substantially re-covers the same nine symptom→cause mappings already tabulated in 'Anti-patrones recurrentes' (loop infinito, card no aparece, conversación vacía, trazas ok, kwarg drift, cache, voseo, channel format), and 'Budget Gating' inlines a full plan-defaults pricing table while simultaneously saying the detail lives in PR-2 CONTRACT.md. This matches anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') better than anchor 4, since the duplication is a full section rather than a minor trim. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Everything is executable and copy-paste ready: exact pytest invocations with flags and env vars ('UPDATE_GOLDEN=1 .venv/bin/pytest tests/modules/copilot/golden/ -q'), exact psql queries against copilot_trace_event and copilot_llm_call, a concrete BudgetGuard.check code signature, numbered extension recipes with exact file paths ('src/modules/{name}/copilot_provider/__init__.py:provider'), and specific test file names per checkpoint. Coverage of the common diagnostic and extension cases is comprehensive — matching the anchor-5 example. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step processes are strictly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the 10-step 'Diagnóstico — orden estricto', the 9-step 'Bug-fix protocol' with RED test → fix mínimo → GREEN → quality gates → replay, a 14-item pre-close checklist, and the closing 6-step anchor ('Sin esos 6 pasos cumplidos, no toco código'). Error-recovery loops are explicit ('Si llegás al paso 4 sin haber leído el learning... retroceder'), matching the anchor-5 pattern of sequence + validation + feedback + checklist. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body opens with an SSoT routing table pointing to per-concern docs, and closes with a 'Project invariants (read on demand)' section that clearly signals the two real bundle references (references/copilot-resilience.md, references/copilot-observability.md) — one level deep, no nested-reference chains. Structure and navigation are good. The gap versus anchor 5 is that significant self-contained reference material (the expanded pattern bank, the budget/plan-defaults tables, the full F0-F11 phase map) is inlined in SKILL.md where a reference file could carry it — consistent with anchor 4's 'most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |