Content
76%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, highly actionable skill body with executable examples and clear sections. The main gap is the missing validate/verify feedback loop in the authoring workflow, which the rubric caps at 3 for destructive/gating operations.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the Authoring Checklist (e.g., test the hook against a safe sample tool call and confirm the expected decision/exit code before relying on it).
Consider moving the full JSON-envelope field semantics and env-var/exit-code tables into a reference file under references/, keeping SKILL.md as a tighter overview with a one-level-deep pointer.
Trim a few explanatory asides (e.g. the 'Default to deny — reach for halt only when...' prose) or relocate them to the Debugging section to tighten conciseness toward the top anchor.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, table-driven, and free of concept padding, but a few explanatory asides ('Default to deny — reach for halt only when...') sit slightly beyond the bare essentials. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste-ready bash scripts, a concrete jsonc config block, an inline one-liner, and explicit env-var/exit-code tables cover the common authoring cases fully. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Authoring Checklist and Debugging section give a coherent sequence, but because hooks can block/halt tool calls (destructive/gating) the absence of an explicit validate-then-verify checkpoint caps this at 3 per the rubric. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the single reference (docs/hooks/README.md) is one level deep and clearly signaled, and sections are well organized — though some I/O-contract detail could be externalized and the lone reference points outside the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |