Content
82%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 well-structured, lean design guide with concrete API names, a decision table, validation steps, and a review checklist. It could be strengthened with a small executable code example and an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop.
Suggestions
Add a minimal copy-paste example of constructing a RuleDiagnostic or a #[derive(Diagnostic)] type to lift actionability from concrete guidance to fully executable.
Turn the Validation section into an explicit feedback loop (snapshot/fixture fails -> inspect -> fix -> re-run) so checkpoints connect back to error recovery.
Consider moving the Advice Selection table detail or standalone-derive attribute checklist into a reference file so SKILL.md stays a tighter overview pointing to one-level-deep materials.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and directive, using imperative bullets, a decision table, and short rules; it assumes competence with Rust and the codebase and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It names concrete APIs (RuleDiagnostic, #[derive(Diagnostic)], markup!), file paths, and a needs-to-mechanism table giving actionable guidance, but provides no copy-paste code examples showing how to actually construct a diagnostic. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A Review Checklist and a Validation section provide explicit checkpoints for a non-destructive design task, but there is no explicit feedback loop (e.g., snapshot fails -> fix -> re-run) tying validation back into the workflow. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized with clearly signaled one-level-deep references to a canonical external guide (CONTRIBUTING.md, diagnostic.rs, advice.rs), though the ~95-line body carries substantial inline guidance rather than splitting further into bundle files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |