Content
96%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 tightly written, highly executable release runbook: concrete commands, explicit validation with feedback loops, and repo-specific rationale that earns its tokens. The only structural improvement is moving the release-notes template and release-form parameters into a one-level-deep reference file.
Suggestions
Extract the release-notes template and the GitHub release query-parameter table into a references/release-form.md file and link to it from Step 7, keeping SKILL.md as the overview pipeline.
The git log commands use vPREV placeholders; a one-line note on substituting the actual tag from the `git tag` output would remove the only non-copy-paste step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and command-first: every section is either an executable snippet, a table, or a one-line constraint, and the little prose present conveys repo-specific facts Claude cannot know (e.g. "`harbor dev` only runs `.scripts/*.ts` Deno scripts, so `release.sh` must be invoked directly with bash"). No explanation of concepts Claude already knows; not a 4 because there is no padding to trim. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable throughout: exact file paths and line hints ("Open `.scripts/seed.ts` ... line ~9"), copy-paste bash blocks (`bash .scripts/release.sh`, `git tag --sort=-creatordate | head -5`), a fixed commit message ("chore: vX.Y.Z" — no variation), and a runnable python3 URL-encoding snippet for the release form. Covers the common cases including the no-new-services variant. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven clearly sequenced steps preceded by a pre-flight (clean tree, wiki repo exists with clone command), with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the lint-gate block exits nonzero on any `--rules --json` finding and instructs "fix every finding and rerun the full lint gate", Step 2 says to check codegen output for errors (especially the wiki push), and Step 6 verifies `git status` after committing. The cap for batch/destructive workflows without validation does not apply — validation is present at every risky stage. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body (~200 lines) is well-sectioned with clear headers and no nested references, but everything is inlined in SKILL.md — no bundle files exist, and separable material like the release-notes template and the GitHub-release query-parameter table would sit naturally in a `references/` file. Good structure and easy to navigate, just minor organization headroom versus the ideal split. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |