Content
90%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, highly actionable coding-standards skill that provides concrete file paths, real code-comment examples, and a clear decision process for the no-`any` rule without over-explaining basics. The only mild gap is the absence of an explicit validation checkpoint in the no-`any` workflow, though the operation is non-destructive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what TypeScript, acronyms, or comments are, and every section (no-`any` process, acronym table, comment examples, smell test) earns its place, matching the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully concrete and executable: exact file paths like 'packages/shared/src/types.ts', a do/don't table with real identifier examples, real TypeScript comment examples marked good/bad, and a smell test enumerating specific trigger words ('to avoid', 'to fix', 'to prevent'), matching the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The no-`any` section is a clearly sequenced three-step numbered process with concrete sub-locations, fitting the score-4 anchor; it stays at 4 rather than 5 because there is no explicit validation/checkpoint, though none is strictly required for a non-destructive standards decision process. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clearly headed sections and is compact enough to live entirely inline with no external references needed, fitting score-4; it does not reach 5 because at ~75 lines it slightly exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill threshold that would let well-organized sections alone score 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |