Content
80%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 concise, well-structured instruction skill with concrete numeric guidance and clear sections. Its main weakness is workflow clarity: the counting/flagging procedure lacks explicit validation checkpoints for edge cases (shared clients, JSON-blob resources).
Suggestions
Add one or two concrete commands for the line count (e.g., a grep/awk pipeline for non-blank, non-comment .go lines) so the procedure is fully executable rather than leaving the count method implicit.
Insert an explicit validation/edge-case checkpoint after the ratio step — e.g., 'If the resource shares a gen package with others, re-confirm the field set before flagging' — to turn implicit guidance into a feedback loop.
Clarify the action when the ratio is in-band ('In-band is not a pass; still read the code') by specifying what to read for, so the non-flag path is also actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and dense with no padding of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Trigger/Fix/Why) earns its tokens. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete targets (pinned SDK path go/openapi/gen/<service>, JSON-tagged fields, 17× fields, 10×–24× band, flag 3× midpoint) but provides no actual command to count non-blank/non-comment lines, leaving one execution detail to Claude. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence is present (identify types → count fields → count Go lines → ratio → flag extremes) but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or a feedback loop for ambiguous cases like shared clients. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-organized single-file skill under 50 lines with clear Trigger/Fix/Why sections and no need for external references; meets the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |