Content
26%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.
The body is terse but contains essentially no usable content: it describes a helper script that is never called, provides no invocation guidance, and its only reference points to a file that does not exist in the bundle. As written, the skill does not tell Claude how to do anything.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable guidance for the helper — e.g., how to invoke read.py, its arguments, and what it returns — or remove the helper mention entirely if the skill has no operational purpose.
Fix the broken [read.py](read.py) reference: either ship the file in the bundle (e.g., scripts/read.py) or delete the link, since the referenced path currently resolves to nothing.
If the unconstrained read is ever intended to run, document an explicit workflow with validation/safety checkpoints (e.g., confirming the caller-supplied path is expected) given the operation reads outside a safe root.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is only two sentences with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, so it is largely efficient. It drops to 4 rather than 5 because meta-commentary like 'preserves the historical unconstrained path read' and 'The evaluation never calls it' adds no operational value and could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The body only describes ('The inert helper read.py preserves the historical unconstrained path read') without any instruction, invocation example, arguments, or expected output — matching 'only describes rather than instructs'. It cannot score 2 because there are not even high-level steps to execute, and the referenced read.py does not exist in the bundle, leaving nothing actionable at all. | 1 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | No sequence or steps are present and the one implied action (invoking read.py) is left completely undefined, matching 'steps missing or incoherent; no sequence; no validation for risky operations'. The simple-skill exception does not apply because the single action is ambiguous (the body even states the helper is never called), and a risky unconstrained read has no validation or safety checkpoint. | 1 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The sole reference [read.py](read.py) points to a file that does not exist in the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), so navigation to the referenced content is impossible — 'minimal structure; references are buried' is the closest fit. Although the skill is small enough to score higher with well-organized sections, the dangling reference to a nonexistent file blocks that. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 8 / 20 Passed |