Content
72%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, well-structured instruction skill: a copy-paste-ready output template, unambiguous classification rules, and clear escalation policy, with no wasted tokens on background concepts. Its weaknesses are the absence of a sequenced workflow with an explicit validation checkpoint for a batch operation, and no concrete tooling for the scan step itself.
Suggestions
Add a short numbered workflow (scan manifests/lockfiles → classify each package → apply the loop action → record overrides) with an explicit validation checkpoint before any update is applied, since batch operations are capped at 3 without one.
Name the concrete commands or tools for the scan step (e.g., `npm outdated`, `pip list --outdated`, `osv-scanner`) so the primary action is executable rather than implied.
Trim or externalize the generic prompt-injection explanation inside the "Untrusted input" block, keeping only the loop-specific rules (state-file handling, flagging by number/path, not copying suspicious text forward).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core sections ("Output per package", "Classification Rules", "Rules") are lean and assume Claude's competence — no semver or CVE tutorials, terse rule statements. It falls to anchor 4 rather than 5 because the 12-line "Untrusted input" block (~25% of the body) partially restates generic prompt-injection concepts Claude already knows alongside the loop-specific rules. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The output template ("### package-name (ecosystem: npm|pip|go|etc.)" with Current/Suggested/Risk/CVE/Actionable fields and "Suggested loop action: patch-in-worktree | escalate-human | skip") and the classification rules are concrete, decision-ready guidance for an instruction-only skill. It misses anchor 5 because the primary scan step is never grounded in concrete commands or tools (e.g., npm outdated, pip-audit, osv-scanner). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough flow is implied (scan → produce per-package output → classify → apply loop action → record overrides from `dependency-sweeper-state.md`), but steps are never sequenced and the only checkpoint is implicit ("minor: … verifier required"). Per the rubric guideline, a batch operation without an explicit validation step is capped at anchor 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ do not exist), well-organized sections, and no nested references — the `scripts/sync-untrusted-input.mjs` mention is a generation-source comment and `dependency-sweeper-state.md` is runtime state, not a skill reference. Per the simple-skill guideline, well-organized sections alone earn anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |