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 tight, high-signal instruction skill: lean editorial rules with a clear workflow, explicit verification pass, and concrete output contracts. The main improvement opportunities are a brief example announcement and handling of ambiguous or unverifiable evidence.
Suggestions
Add a short (5-10 line) example announcement to make the expected shape and bullet style concrete, covering the actionability gap.
Specify what to do when evidence is ambiguous or unavailable (e.g., ask the user for the release range rather than guessing), strengthening the Final Check validation loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line is a directive the model could not infer on its own (section ordering, the exact "**Breaking Change:**" marker, scope rules, omission rules); there is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. This matches the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: fixed five-section order, level-two headings, exact breaking-change prefix, beta-vs-stable comparison ranges, and output-only formatting rules. The minor gap is the absence of a short example announcement showing the expected shape, which keeps it below fully copy-paste-ready guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sections form a clear sequence (Establish The Release Scope -> Select And Write -> Structure -> Final Check) with an explicit validation pass ("Verify the release range, every included claim, and all required actions against the inspected evidence") and a checkpoint ("Check for breaking changes even when commit titles have no breaking-change marker"). There is no error-recovery guidance for ambiguous evidence (e.g., what to do when the release range or a claim cannot be confirmed), which is the minor validation gap of the anchor-4 example. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the body references none, and the ~90-line body is well-sectioned with all content at the same altitude of editorial policy, so nothing needs offloading and navigation is easy. It does not fully match the anchor-5 pattern (well-signaled one-level-deep references / content appropriately split across files) since it is a single self-contained file, and the under-50-line simple-skill exception does not apply, so 4 is the best fit. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |