Content
85%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 workflow is exceptionally actionable and clearly sequenced with strong validation feedback loops. The main weakness is progressive disclosure: the skill leans on detectors.md, refactor-playbook.md, and crap.py, but no bundle files ship with the skill.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced bundle: create references/detectors.md and references/refactor-playbook.md (and the crap.py script under scripts/) so the load-on-demand pointers resolve to real files.
If crap.py is intentionally external, state where it comes from / how it is installed instead of referencing it as a bundled ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR} artifact.
Consider inlining a minimal detectors quick-reference (the 2-3 most common languages) so the workflow is usable even before the referenced files are loaded.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean, command-driven content; the CRAP formula and Savoia-deviation notes earn their place as domain context Claude lacks, with only minor trims possible. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready commands (crap.py lizard/filter/cache-split/score), concrete config YAML, JSON shapes, and exit codes that cover the common cases end to end. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Nine explicitly sequenced steps include validation checkpoints (empty scope exits, empty survivors skip to step 8, missing tools stop) and a tests-first guardrail with an AskUserQuestion confirmation before applying changes. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well sectioned and signals one-level-deep load-on-demand references (detectors.md, refactor-playbook.md) and a crap.py script, but none of those bundle files actually exist in references/ or scripts/, so the disclosure is broken. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |