Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, well-structured, and presents a clear authoring workflow with a QA checkpoint, scoring high on conciseness, workflow clarity, and progressive disclosure. Its main weakness is actionability: guidance is instructional and high-level rather than concrete with executable examples.
Suggestions
Add one or two concrete, copy-paste guideline examples (e.g. a sample component rule block showing anatomy, states, and token usage) to lift actionability toward 3.
Show a short worked token example (e.g. a button rule referencing primary=#3B82F6 and focus-visible styling) instead of only describing what to state.
Optionally include a compact filled-in QA checklist example to make the validation step concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and section-organized with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every line (tokens, weights, rules, workflow) earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance like "Define required states: default, hover, focus-visible..." and "State spacing, typography, and color-token usage explicitly" directs Claude but provides no concrete, copy-paste examples or executable snippets, landing between abstract direction and fully executable instruction. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step "Guideline Authoring Workflow" is sequenced explicitly and reinforced by a QA checklist that functions as a validation checkpoint; no destructive/batch operation triggers the feedback-loop cap. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple, single-file skill under 50 lines with no bundle files, and its sections are well-organized with clear headers, meeting the rubric's allowance for simple skills to score 3 on progressive disclosure. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |