Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill is concise and reasonably structured, but its workflow steps are direction rather than executable commands and lack a validation checkpoint, and it references a 'docs/perf-requirements.md' file that is not present in the bundle.
Suggestions
Replace vague step verbs with concrete commands (e.g. 'git log --oneline -20 -- <path>' and a specific grep/repo-map invocation) to make the workflow copy-paste executable.
Add a validation checkpoint (e.g. confirm each hypothesis cites a specific file/path or git change before emitting it) to reach the workflow_clarity anchor for 3.
Either add the referenced 'docs/perf-requirements.md' to the bundle or remove the dangling 'canonical contract' reference so progressive disclosure is clean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no concept explanations Claude already knows; every line (Required Steps, Output Format, Constraints) earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives a concrete YAML output schema and a MUST-check git constraint, but the workflow steps use vague direction ('repo-map or grep', 'Produce up to 5 hypotheses') rather than executable commands, landing at level 2 rather than 3. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Three steps are clearly sequenced with a MUST-check ordering constraint, but there is no validation checkpoint verifying the hypotheses against evidence before output, so it stays at level 2 rather than 3. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and the skill is short and single-purpose, but the body points to 'docs/perf-requirements.md' as the canonical contract and that file does not exist in the bundle, a dangling reference that prevents a top score. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |