Content
81%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 high-quality operational skill: fully executable commands and tool payloads, an explicitly sequenced workflow with a genuine lint→validate→fix→revalidate feedback loop, and well-signposted one-level-deep references. It is let down by noticeable rhetorical padding and repetition (~500 lines where ~350 would carry the same rules) and by a bundled-asset entry (`examples/cekura.tests.json`) that does not exist on disk.
Suggestions
Trim persuasive-justification asides and consolidate the trigger-question and validation rules so each is stated once (e.g., step 6's re-explanation of the trigger contract and the Handoff's restatement of validation rules can reference the earlier sections), targeting roughly a 30% token reduction.
Add the missing `examples/cekura.tests.json` (or remove it from the 'Bundled assets' list) so every advertised bundle file resolves — it is currently cited as proof of a clean `--strict` lint but is absent from the bundle.
Move the detailed conditional-actions tag rules in step 4 (which duplicate `cekura-eval-design`'s reference) into a bundled reference file with only the CI-critical exceptions kept inline, shortening the main body while keeping the rules one level deep.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with genuinely non-obvious operational rules and teaches nothing Claude already knows, but at ~500 lines it carries real padding: rhetorical justification asides ("Every extra file is one more thing the customer maintains forever", "which is worse than none because it reads as coverage"), and repeated material — the trigger question is specified in 'The interaction contract' and re-explained in step 6, and validation rules appear in both step 7 and the Handoff. That is more than the 'minor instances' of the 4 anchor and fits the 3 anchor's 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'; it is well above the 2 anchor since no section is generic filler. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is copy-paste executable throughout: exact discovery commands (grep/git ls-files snippets), a concrete JSON spec skeleton with real field values, the lint invocation `python3 <skill>/scripts/lint_suite.py cekura.tests.json --strict`, named MCP tools with their exact payloads (`scenarios_validate_json` takes `{agent_id, spec, channel}`), the validation HTTP endpoint with its header, and a fixed three-file deliverable list. This matches the 5 anchor's fully executable, common-case-covering guidance; nothing remains at the pseudocode level of the 3 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–8 are explicitly sequenced with decision points (create vs. update at step 0), and validation is a first-class feedback loop: "lint, then validate, then fix, then validate again, until it comes back valid", with hard gates ("A suite that has not come back `valid: true` is not finished") and error-recovery guidance (errors keyed by location, "Fix them; never drop a metric or loosen a case"). This is the 5 anchor — clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops — not the 4 anchor, which allows missing checkpoints. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is strong: four one-level-deep reference files (discovery.md, case-catalog.md, ci-wiring.md, preview-deploy.md) each signposted at the exact step that needs them and summarized in a 'Bundled assets' section, plus scripts run from the skill directory. However, the bundle listing names `examples/cekura.tests.json` — "a three-case suite that lints clean in `--strict`" — and no `examples/` directory exists in the bundle, a dangling reference; scoring against the actual bundle structure, that is a minor organization gap fitting the 4 anchor rather than the 5 anchor's 'easy navigation'. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |