Content
72%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.
An exemplary lean, well-sectioned body that assumes Claude's competence and points to package artifacts one level deep, but the only code example is a minimal agent call with an undefined 'llm' variable, and the runtime/session wiring that defines the skill's purpose has no executable example. A complete Core Pattern covering runtime construction and a validation checkpoint would raise actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Extend the Core Pattern snippet to be copy-paste ready: show how 'llm' is constructed (e.g. via the no-key transport) so the example runs without guessing.
Add a short second snippet or concrete call shape for the headline use case — constructing an AxCodeRuntime/ProcessCodeRuntime session and selecting a runtime profile ('javascript-quickjs', 'python-pyodide').
Turn the guardrails into an explicit ordered checklist (pick example type → verify against axir-api.json → run) with a verification step before presenting generated code.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is ~40 lines of tight bullet sections ('Real network support: yes', 'Runnable examples: `examples/`') with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place. It clearly matches the lean/efficient top anchor, well above the 'minor over-explanation' level below. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | There is one real C++ snippet ('auto helper = axllm::agent("question:string -> answer:string")' plus forward call), but it references an undefined 'llm' with no setup shown, and the skill's headline use cases (wiring a ProcessCodeRuntime or AxCodeSession, using a runtime profile) have no code at all — the API surface is only name-dropped ('axllm::ProcessCodeRuntime', 'axllm::RuntimeEnvelope') without signatures or usage. This matches 'some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details'; it is not the 4-level of mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Guardrails section gives an implicit decision flow (start from package examples; choose provider-api only with credentials, else no-key; resolve doc/source disagreement by updating the compiler and regenerating), but no explicit sequence or validation checkpoints for the runtime-wiring task. It fits 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'; the missing runtime-wiring example keeps it from 4. No destructive/batch operations, so the workflow cap does not apply. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no bundle files of its own, and defers detail one level deep to clearly signaled package artifacts listed under Package Facts ('API.md and axir-api.json', 'axir-capabilities.json', 'examples/'). Sections are well organized (When To Use / Package Facts / Core Pattern / Relevant API Surface / Guardrails), matching the simple-skill exception for a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |