Content
78%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 content is a well-structured, largely executable instruction skill: a concrete five-step process, an explicit anti-pattern section, and a realistic example test spec. Its main weaknesses are minor duplication between the Overview, Core Process, and Quick Reference, and the absence of a post-failure re-validation loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely lean and assumes competence (no concept explanations, no library tutorials), but the Overview paragraph and the Quick Reference table partially restate the Core Process steps. These are minor trimmable instances matching anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place ideal of 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: exact file path './tests/<name>.md', a mandatory Prerequisites section, and a copy-paste-ready example spec with a POST request and a sqlite3 verification query. Minor gaps — subagent spawning is described loosely ('using the Task tool or @mention subagent system') with no invocation example, and the results-collection format is unspecified — keep it at anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence with expectations validated by subagents and Pass/Fail results collected; the Red Flags section adds error-recovery guidance. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit feedback loop after failures — the fix step is optional and user-gated, with no re-run/re-validate checkpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and none are needed: the ~64-line body is cleanly sectioned (Overview, Core Process, Quick Reference, Red Flags, Example) with the single short example appropriately inlined. Nothing belongs in a separate file and there are no buried or nested references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |