Content
47%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 admirably lean and the prompt-injection safety block is relevant given the skill ingests untrusted PR/commit text, but the skill is not self-contained: its contract lives in an unshipped "Grok version", and the output format (per-item blocks, Scan Summary, structured output) is never defined. Inlining the contract or a block template would fix the biggest gaps.
Suggestions
Inline the contract instead of referencing "the Grok version" — define or template the per-item block and Scan Summary formats (or point to a real reference file in the bundle).
Add a short step sequence (gather merges/PRs/commits → classify per key rules → emit blocks → assemble summary) with a validation checkpoint that every cited PR number was actually seen in the scanned range.
State what range "recent" means (e.g., since last release tag) so the scan scope is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core guidance ("Key rules: cite PR numbers, surface breaking/security explicitly, ignore pure dep and bot noise unless security") is lean and assumes Claude's competence, but the generated untrusted-input block has some redundancy across bullets that could be trimmed — anchor 4 (efficient, minor over-explanation) rather than 5, whose requirement that every token earn its place is slightly violated by the boilerplate's repetition. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | "Same contract as the Grok version" points to a contract that is not included in this skill, and the deliverables ("per-item blocks + Scan Summary", "structured output") are undefined — no template, example, or format spec appears anywhere — matching anchor 2 (minimal concrete guidance, high-level hints missing specific steps); it is not 3 because there is no partially-complete concrete specification to build on. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | No steps or sequence are given — only output rules — leaving the scan-then-draft process entirely implicit with no validation checkpoints (e.g., how to verify all relevant PRs were covered or that blocks parse correctly); this matches anchor 2 (rough implied sequence with many gaps, validation absent) rather than 1 because the deliverables and rules at least imply the scan → produce-blocks → summary shape. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is short and sectioned, appropriate for a single-purpose skill, with the bulk of policy detail delegated to a generated block; however, the dangling "Grok version" reference and the unresolvable scripts/sync-untrusted-input.mjs mention keep it below anchor 5, fitting anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps). | 4 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |