Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, well-structured skill that provides clear, actionable guidance for retrieving and using CDS documentation. Its main strengths are the concrete tool usage instructions, explicit fallback mechanism, and clear workflow sequencing. Its primary weakness is moderate verbosity—some sections (the preamble, 'What done looks like') repeat or over-explain behavioral expectations that could be more concise.
Suggestions
Tighten the opening preamble: the instructions about internalizing docs and not dumping content could be condensed to 1-2 sentences instead of a full paragraph.
Consider merging 'What done looks like' into the workflow section or removing it, as it largely restates guidance already given in sections 1-4.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary elaboration. The preamble about 'source material you have read' and 'internalize props, patterns, imports' is somewhat verbose—Claude understands how to use reference material. The 'What done looks like' section partially repeats earlier guidance. However, it avoids explaining basic concepts and stays focused on the task. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance: specific MCP tool names and parameters (`list-cds-routes` with `platform: 'web' | 'mobile'`, `get-cds-doc` with route format), exact curl commands with URLs, and clear fallback logic. The route format (e.g., `web/getting-started/installation.txt`) is specific and copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced: (1) resolve platform, (2) load index, (3) fetch needed pages, then act. The tool order section provides an explicit fallback sequence (MCP → curl). The skill handles ambiguity cases with clear guidance on when to ask vs. decide. For a documentation retrieval skill, this level of workflow clarity is appropriate—no destructive operations require validation checkpoints. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear numbered sections, but everything is inline in a single file. Given the skill's moderate length (~80 lines of content), this is acceptable, but the 'Practical notes' and 'What done looks like' sections could potentially be trimmed or consolidated rather than being separate sections. No bundle files are provided, so there's no external reference structure to evaluate, but the skill doesn't seem to need one. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |