Content
78%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-sequenced instruction-only skill with concrete git commands, safe push rules, and explicit stop conditions. Its main weaknesses are redundancy between the Contract and Publish Workflow sections, an unspecified validation step, and no executable example for opening the review request.
Suggestions
Merge the Contract and Publish Workflow sections into one numbered workflow to remove the duplication between them.
Add a concrete example for opening the review request, e.g. `gh pr create --base main --head <branch>` or the glab equivalent.
Make the validation step specific (e.g., name the test/lint/typecheck commands to run for the changed surface) instead of "run relevant validation".
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, but the "Contract" and "Publish Workflow" sections substantially duplicate each other (steps 1-10 restate the contract's items 1-8). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete commands are given throughout (`git status -sb`, `--force-with-lease`, `gh`, `glab`), but the pivotal PR-creation step ("Open or update the review request using the host's tool/API/UI") lacks a copy-paste-ready example command. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence with stop conditions (uncommitted changes, unclear conflict resolution) and post-conflict validation reruns, but "run relevant validation" never specifies which commands constitute validation, leaving checkpoints partially implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | An under-50-line single-file skill with well-organized sections and no external bundle files; per the simple-skill guideline this structure merits a 5, and no referenced paths are dangling. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |