Content
85%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 strong, disciplined process skill: lean imperative guidance, concrete commands throughout, a well-sequenced workflow with explicit user-confirmation and post-resolution validation, and a useful anti-patterns section. Its one real defect is structural: it links to reference.md for optional command snippets and a merge message template, but that file does not exist in the bundle, leaving the only progressive-disclosure reference broken.
Suggestions
Create the referenced reference.md (or a references/ file) containing the optional command snippets and merge message template, or remove the dangling link — as written it points Claude to a file that does not exist.
Trim duplication between Goals and Hard rules (merge the 'do not assume main wins' points) and drop the repeated Flows/React app framing from either the intro or Quick reference to tighten conciseness toward 5.
In Quick reference, either cut the stage-2/stage-3 git-internal explanation (Claude already knows merge stage numbering) or reduce it to the single verification command.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is policy/process content Claude does not already know (hard rules, prioritization scheme, abort handling) and it stays tight, with copy-paste commands rather than git tutorials. Minor trimmable spots keep it below 5: the Goals section partially restates Hard rules ("do not assume 'main wins'" vs "No silent resolution"), the intro's "Flows/React apps are a common case where conflicts cluster in app shells" is repeated in Quick reference, and the stage-2/stage-3 git semantics in Quick reference edge toward explanation of built-in git knowledge. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully concrete: exact commands ("git fetch" then "git merge origin/main", "git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U", "git show :2:path" vs "git show :3:path", "git merge --abort" / "git rebase --abort", "git checkout --conflict=merge <file>"), a concrete classification scheme (Orthogonal / Overlapping / Corruption risk), a P0–P3 ordering, and even a literal reply-format users can give ("(a) follow recommendations, (b) keep branch for file X..."). Per the rubric's code_vs_instruction note, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 5-step workflow with explicit checkpoints and a validation/feedback loop appropriate to this risky operation: pause at conflicts ("Stop at conflicts"), report before editing, analyze, "Only after the user confirms... apply resolutions", then validate ("Re-run git status; ensure no conflict markers remain; run tests or lint") with an explicit error path for aborting. The destructive-operation validation cap is satisfied, and the sequence matches the anchor-5 pattern of ordered steps plus explicit validation and recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned (Goals, Hard rules, Workflow, Anti-patterns, Quick reference) and correctly pushes optional detail out of the main line ("For optional command snippets and a merge message template, see [reference.md](reference.md)"), but no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist and reference.md is missing — the sole external reference is dangling, so the promised optional content is unreachable. This lands at anchor 3 ('references present but not clearly signaled / functional') rather than 4–5 where a real, loadable reference would put it. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |