Content
85%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 lean, well-sequenced process skill: every section gives concrete, judgment-bearing directives, the prove-before-handoff step provides genuine validation with feedback loops, and external detail is properly deferred to clearly-labeled one-level-deep references. The only weaknesses are a brief known-concept explanation in the opening paragraph and the lack of a structural template for the generated skill, both minor.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and directive — "Show each property failing on a broken variant of the code it guards", "Use this repo's real commands, paths, and nouns, and leave no placeholders" — with almost no padding. However, the opening spends two sentences explaining the tests-vs-verification concept ("A test checks the cases that someone thought to write. Formal verification checks every case in a stated scope: every order of steps in a model, every input up to a bound, or every input") that Claude already knows, which is a minor instance of trimmable over-explanation; this fits anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable directives throughout: tool-selection rules ("Whether events can happen in a bad order usually suits a model checker… TLA+ is the default for that in any language"; "If no verifier runs on this language… test the real code with generated inputs, not a hand model of the function"), a seven-item quality checklist, and a concrete validation procedure ("Follow the generated skill once… on a scratch change that breaks the property in the real code"). The minor gap keeping it below anchor 5 is that no skeleton or example frontmatter for the generated skill is provided, leaving its structure to be invented; per the scoring note, the absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized since the guidance is actionable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sections are sequenced in execution order (choose target → choose tool → generate → prove → hand off) with an explicit validation step and feedback loop — "If the skill misses the break or a step does not run, fix the skill or the verification, not the scratch change" — a post-validation checkpoint ("confirm that the check is back where it started: passing, or failing only on the findings you will report"), and a checklist ("What makes it good"). This matches the anchor-5 pattern of clear sequence, explicit validation, and error-recovery loops; anchor 4 would require missing checkpoints, which are all present. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines with well-organized sections and no bundle files, which per the rubric's simple-skill note can score 5 on organization alone. Its two external references are one level deep, clearly signaled with purpose and read-timing ("read [the Claude Code adapter]… once per session"; "read every result with the pstack /statechart skill… It shows each invariant violation the checker finds as its shortest path in plain words"), and it explicitly delegates volatile details ("Its commands, options, and file paths change between releases and machines, so copy none of them into the generated skill or its scripts"). | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |