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.
An exceptionally lean, well-structured skill body: every line is skill-specific, both commands are executable, and an explicit post-commit verification step covers this batch operation, with the CI context in 'Why' justifying the process. The remaining gaps are minor — the location of version.Current, what 'review' concretely means for generated packages, and no feedback loop for a failed verification.
Suggestions
Name the file where `version.Current` is defined so the 'Bump `version.Current`' step is copy-paste executable.
Add an explicit feedback loop, e.g. 'If check-generated-resources.sh reports differences, fix the generator input, re-run go generate, and re-commit' — this would raise both actionability and workflow clarity.
Make the review step concrete: specify what 'Review every generated package, versions.yaml, registry, example' means (e.g., diff regenerated output against committed files) and what 'the registry' refers to.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every sentence carries skill-specific information Claude could not infer — trigger conditions ('version.Current, the pinned SDK, or a resource override or acceptance file'), exact commands, and CI rationale ('CI checks each package version and compares regenerated output with committed files on every PR'). There is no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; even the 'Why' section earns its tokens by justifying the verification requirement. Nothing needs trimming, so anchor 4 does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides two fully executable commands — 'Run `go generate ./internal/provider/` from the provider root' and 'Run `bash tools/iac-codegen/scripts/check-generated-resources.sh`' — plus concrete file targets ('versions.yaml', 'internal/provider/codegen.go'), matching anchor 4 ('mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'). It falls short of anchor 5's copy-paste-ready coverage because the file containing 'version.Current' is never named, and 'Review every generated package, versions.yaml, registry, example, and affected documentation page' does not say what review entails or what 'the registry' is. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Fix' section lays out a discernible sequence (bump version → generate → review outputs → add codegen.go entries → include output in the change → verify) with an explicit validation step ('Run bash tools/iac-codegen/scripts/check-generated-resources.sh after the change is committed to verify the full result'), so the batch-operation cap at 3 does not apply — validation is present. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop (nothing says what to do when the check fails) and the sequence is prose rather than an explicitly ordered or checklist form; it is above anchor 3 because a clear checkpoint is explicitly stated. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, self-contained, and needs no external references, and the body is organized into clearly labeled sections ('Trigger', 'Fix', 'Why') — per the rubric guideline, short skills with no need for external references score 5 with just well-organized sections. No bundle files exist, so there are no buried or nested references to penalize; this is not anchor 4, which requires 'minor organization gaps' that are absent here. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |