Content
80%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 content is concise and well-structured with a concrete output template and clear scan targets, but the batch workflow lacks validation checkpoints, which limits workflow clarity. Adding a verification step would meaningfully improve the skill.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation/verification step to the workflow (e.g., cross-check that flagged TODOs are newly introduced in the merge, or verify broken-link hits before reporting) so the batch operation self-checks.
Provide one or two concrete executable commands or queries (e.g., a git log range or grep for TODOs in the diff) to lift actionability from instruction-only to copy-paste ready.
Clarify how 'state' overrides the 7-day window and where that state lives, since the rule references it without defining it.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no padding, no basic-concept explanations, and every line (output template, look-for list, rules) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides a copy-paste output template, concrete scan targets with file:line expectations, and numeric thresholds (7 days, small-only dead code); minor gaps remain since it is instruction-only with no executable command examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence exists via the output template and rules, but this batch operation (scanning multiple merges) lacks any explicit validation or verification checkpoint, capping workflow clarity at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple skill under 50 lines with well-organized sections and no need for external references; the structure is clear and easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |