Content
86%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 well-structured, token-efficient skill body with a clear process and output template. The main gap is an explicit feedback loop for when verification fails.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop after step 4, e.g. 'If tests/lint fail, fix the change and re-run; do not widen the diff.'
In the Output template, give a one-line concrete example of a filled-in 'Verification run' field so the expected shape is unambiguous.
Clarify in the Process what to do when the failure cannot be reproduced locally (step 1 says 'if possible' but does not state the fallback).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line (Inputs, Process, Output, Rules) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete process steps and a specific output template make the guidance actionable, but it defers executable commands to AGENTS.md/project skills rather than providing them, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence with an explicit validation step (step 4: run tests/lint) and a verification field in the output, but the validate->fix->retry feedback loop is only implicit rather than spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references; content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (Inputs, Process, Output, Rules). | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |