Content
67%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 well-structured, highly actionable procedural skill with explicit validation checkpoints, error-recovery paths, and a decision table covering the main situations. Its main weaknesses are significant cross-section redundancy (the native-tool-first rule is stated four times), a creation snippet with undefined variables, and a missing Step 2 in the workflow numbering.
Suggestions
Consolidate the overlapping "Quick Reference", "Common Mistakes", and "Red Flags" sections — they restate the same three rules (native tools first, verify ignore, run detection) multiple times; one checklist plus one mistakes section would cut ~40 lines.
Make the worktree creation snippet fully executable by defining BRANCH_NAME (e.g., a suggested naming convention) and providing concrete path assignments instead of comment-only placeholders for "$path".
Fix the step numbering (there is no Step 2; the flow jumps from Step 1 to Step 3) so the sequence reads coherently.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete commands and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the same guidance is repeated three to four times across "Step 1a" ("Using `git worktree add` when you have a native tool creates phantom state"), "Common Mistakes" ("Fighting the harness"), "Red Flags" ("Use `git worktree add` when you have a native worktree tool... This is the #1 mistake"), and the Quick Reference table. This matches "Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened"; it is above anchor 2 because there is no concept padding, and below anchor 4 because the redundant sections are a clear trim target. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly executable guidance: detection (git rev-parse / --show-superproject-working-tree), directory selection (ls -d, git check-ignore), setup, and test commands are all concrete and runnable. It falls short of anchor 5 because the creation block is not copy-paste ready — "$BRANCH_NAME" is never defined and "$path" exists only as comments ("# For project-local: path=\"$LOCATION/$BRANCH_NAME\"") — and "npm test / cargo test / pytest / go test" is a choose-one placeholder, matching "concrete code or commands with minor gaps". | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear with strong checkpoints: Step 0 isolation detection with a submodule guard, mandatory git check-ignore verification before creation, sandbox-permission fallback, and baseline test verification with an explicit failure protocol ("If tests fail: Report failures, ask whether to proceed"), plus a Quick Reference checklist. It misses anchor 5 because the step numbering is incoherent — there is no Step 2 (the flow jumps from Step 1 to "Step 3: Project Setup"), leaving a visible gap in the sequence — a minor clarity flaw consistent with anchor 4's "minor validation gaps". | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the single-file body is well structured with clear section headers (Overview, Steps, Quick Reference, Common Mistakes, Red Flags) and easy navigation via the situation/action table; no content is buried or nested. It fits "Good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps" — below anchor 5 because at ~215 lines with heavy Quick Reference/Common Mistakes/Red Flags overlap, the content is not split or tightened the way a well-disciplined overview would be, though nothing here clearly demands a separate reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |