Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-structured instruction-only skill with a clear process and output scaffold. Its main weakness is workflow robustness: verification is mentioned but lacks an explicit fix→re-run feedback loop, and concrete command examples would raise actionability.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop to the Process: after running tests/lint, add 'If failures, fix and re-run until green' to turn the implicit checkpoint into a real validation loop.
Provide one concrete example invocation for the test/lint step (or note where to find project commands, e.g. AGENTS.md) to make the guidance copy-paste ready.
Specify what 'Summarize: what changed, why, what you ran' should contain beyond the Output template, or remove redundancy between the Process step and the Output section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Inputs, Process, Output, Rules) earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Gives concrete instruction-style guidance and a usable output template, but lacks specific executable commands or copy-paste examples (e.g. example test/lint invocations), leaving key details incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step sequence is present, but verification (step 4 'Run tests/lint') is a single flat step with no explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop, matching the 'validation gaps; checkpoints implicit' anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-task, with no external references needed; the body is cleanly organized into well-signaled sections, which the rubric notes allow to score 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |