Content
92%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 exceptionally well-structured workflow skill: every step is sequenced, validation is explicit with feedback loops, bundle files are used exactly when needed, and the prose wastes no tokens. The single gap is that concrete subcommand syntax lives in '--help' rather than inline, which is a defensible design but keeps actionability just short of copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~65-line body is dense with decision rules and commands, assumes Claude's competence, and explains nothing the model already knows; even rationale sentences ('Splitting costs every later reader a hop through the map') are brief and decision-relevant, matching the lean top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, runnable guidance throughout: exact script invocations ('uv run {skill-root}/scripts/shard_tool.py', 'check --rebuild', 'memlog.py append --type decision|change|event'), concrete thresholds ('Shards run about 3 to 14 KB'), and naming rules. It falls short of the top anchor only because exact subcommand syntax is deferred to '--help' rather than shown as literal example invocations. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence (On activation, Assess, Plan, Agree, Build, Check then report) with explicit validation ('Run check on the result, with --rebuild after a faithful split, and fix every failure before you finish') and a user checkpoint ('Build only once they agree'), satisfying the feedback-loop requirement for a batch/destructive operation. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body stays a lean overview; the one external reference (references/update.md, verified to exist) is clearly signaled, one level deep, and loaded only on the activation path that needs it, while argument details are delegated to the script's '--help'. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |