Content
88%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.
An actionable, well-sequenced body with concrete templates, tables, and validation-backed procedures that assume Claude's competence. The only soft spots are mild conciseness trimming opportunities and the absence of bundle files to offload reference material.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and assumption-respecting — no padding explaining pytest/HTTP basics, and each section earns its place with concrete rules — though the ~285-line body has a few explanatory asides ("because that is the axis along which a test's setup differs") that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance: copy-paste module-docstring and assert templates, want→fixture and situation→code tables, concrete commands (./dev-compose.sh, uv run pytest, coverage.py invocation), and the requires_seed marker example covering common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered Procedure (9 steps) is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints — run tests, check the ledger, reconcile the coverage gate, ruff check, generate_schemas --check — plus feedback loops (strict xfail self-retiring on XPASS). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections with one-level-deep, clearly signaled pointers to sibling skills (insight-stand, stand-scenarios, metric-test, stand-ui-test); no bundle files exist, and some inlined tables (status codes, fixtures) are appropriate but the body is large for a single file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |