Content
81%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 well-structured, actionable workflow skill with an exemplary validate-and-revise loop. Its main weaknesses are duplicated scope/discipline guidance and a few spots where concrete examples (rg patterns, DeepWiki question phrasing) would make the guidance copy-paste ready.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicated refusal enumeration in the Scope section (and the overlapping Research Discipline bullets) — the frontmatter description already carries the out-of-scope list, so a single sentence stating the refusal rule would trim ~6 lines.
Add one concrete example each of a targeted search and a focused DeepWiki question (e.g., rg -n 'wal_level' doc/src/sgml/runtime-config-wal.sgml and asking DeepWiki 'How does wal_level affect physical replication?') so the research steps are copy-paste ready.
Specify the filename convention for the saved answer (e.g., kebab-case of the question, max ~60 chars) to remove ambiguity in step 7.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The workflow is lean with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the Scope refusal list duplicates the frontmatter description and the Research Discipline section reiterates workflow steps 3-6 (local docs as authority, DeepWiki as cross-check), leaving minor trims. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete commands (rg, git remote -v, git rev-parse --show-toplevel), the exact MCP tool mcp__deepwiki__ask_question with repoName: postgres/postgres, and a complete answer-format template; minor gaps remain, such as no example rg invocation, no example focused DeepWiki question, and the vague 'filesystem-safe filename derived from the question'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven clearly sequenced steps with an explicit stop-and-ask checkpoint in step 1 and a genuine validation feedback loop in step 6 (DeepWiki check, local re-check, revise, repeat until no material issues); the operation is non-destructive so no cap applies. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-sectioned file (Scope, Required Workflow, Answer Format, Research Discipline) with no nested references and no bundle files, but at ~90 lines it exceeds the simple-skill threshold and inlines the full answer template plus duplicated scope text, leaving minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |