Content
92%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 tight, well-structured skill body: lean sections, a validated multi-step workflow with explicit error-recovery paths, and a concrete answer-shaped example. The only minor gap is the absence of a sample invocation of the Ontoly MCP capabilities themselves.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every section (When to Use, workflow, capabilities, answer shape, fallbacks) earns its place. This matches the lean-and-efficient anchor rather than the 4 anchor's 'minor instances of over-explanation'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable guidance is present ("ontoly build .", seven named MCP capabilities, a copy-ready answer example with the node-ID format "class:src/auth/auth.controller.ts:AuthController"), but there is no example invocation of the capabilities (e.g. a sample CLI call or MCP tool call), leaving a minor gap versus fully copy-paste-ready coverage. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow has an explicit validation checkpoint ("Inspect graph health before answering") and complete error-recovery feedback paths in Fallback Rules (missing graph → build; validation failure → report and verify the affected area; ambiguity → disambiguate; not found → return NOT_FOUND), matching the clear-sequence-with-explicit-validation anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are needed; the self-contained body is compact and cleanly sectioned so navigation is trivial. Per the rubric's short-skill guidance, well-organized sections with no need for external references score 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |