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.
The body is an efficient, well-structured instruction skill with no padding and a clear workflow, held back only by a vague, command-less validation step.
Suggestions
Make step 5 executable by naming the concrete command(s) for skill-path tests and a pass/fail checkpoint, e.g., "Run `python skills/<name>/test_skill.py`; only commit when it passes."
Add an explicit feedback loop after validation (fix errors and re-run) so the verification is a checkpoint rather than a one-shot instruction.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and operational with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place, matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete, specific directives ("Use lowercase hyphenated names", "Put large references or scripts in adjacent files"), but the validation step says only "Run skill-path tests and command/resource discovery" without the actual command, leaving a minor executable gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step sequence is present with a validation/verification step at the end, but the verification ("Run skill-path tests and command/resource discovery after editing") is vague with no feedback loop or pass/fail checkpoint, keeping it just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a sub-50-line simple skill with no need for external references and a well-organized numbered list, which per the simple-skills scoring note qualifies for the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |