Content
90%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 unusually disciplined instruction-only skill: dense, concrete, and self-consistent (it follows its own conciseness rules), with worked examples carrying real commands and explicit verification checkpoints. The workflow is clear but implicit in section ordering, and the monolithic single-file structure leaves minor progressive-disclosure headroom for the per-document-type checklists.
Suggestions
Make the end-to-end workflow explicit — e.g., a short numbered sequence (prepare → draft → verify → report) at the top — so the validation checkpoints in 'Edit before you finish' read as mandatory gates rather than prose advice.
Consider moving the 13 per-document-type checklists in 'What each document needs' into a one-level-deep reference file (e.g., references/document-types.md), keeping SKILL.md as the shared principles plus the three-question fallback.
Add an explicit fix-and-recheck loop for the verification steps (what to do when a link, command, or parse check fails) to reach the feedback-loop standard of the top workflow anchor.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is maximally dense: every line states a rule, a reason, an example, or a constraint ("Cut words, never consequences"; "Put each warning right before its step"), and it never explains concepts Claude already knows (no 'what a README is' padding). It assumes competence throughout and even models its own brevity doctrine, matching 'every token earns its place' rather than the 'minor instances of over-explanation' anchor below. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is as concrete as it can be: worked contrastive examples with real commands ("Check that `kubectl config current-context` prints `staging`, then run `make restore BACKUP=<backup-id>`"), exact rewrite patterns ("the gateway checks the token", not "the token is checked"), and per-document-type checklists covering all 13 common cases named in the description. Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, absence of executable code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is present and ordered ("Before you write" → drafting sections → "Edit before you finish" → "When you reply") with explicit validation checkpoints ("Paths and links resolve, JSON and YAML examples parse, and commands exist"; when shortening, "compare the old and new versions: every condition, warning, number, prerequisite and link that's gone was wrong, obsolete or moved"). It stops short of the top anchor because the sequence is conveyed by section order rather than an explicit procedure, and feedback loops like re-checking after fixes are implied rather than spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well-organized with clear, scannable sections and no nested or buried references (none exist). However, all content lives inline in a ~100-line body — the per-document-type requirements in "What each document needs" are lookup-style material that could plausibly live in a one-level-deep reference file — so it fits 'good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' better than the top anchor's clean overview-plus-references split. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |