Content
93%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 exemplary overview skill: lean, concrete, and correctly split across twelve one-level-deep reference files that all exist. The only gap is the absence of an explicit error-recovery loop around the boundary-testing workflow, which leaves workflow clarity just short of the top anchor.
Suggestions
Add a short validate→fix→retry note to the testing section (e.g., what to do when Block Kit validation or capability checks fail in a test-host run) to close the workflow-clarity gap.
De-duplicate the reference links: the inline 'Read the focused reference' list in Declare access repeats entries in the final References section — one canonical listing would trim tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — statements like 'The manifest is the identity and trust contract' and tabular capability grants carry maximal information with zero concept padding; the only trim candidate is the duplicated reference link listing, which keeps it at the lean anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste ready scaffold commands ('pnpm dlx @emdash-cms/plugin-cli init my-plugin'), a complete executable src/plugin.ts example, and specific API and test-host names ('ctx.storage.<collection>', 'createPluginRuntimeTestHost()', 'host.http.respond()') cover the common authoring path fully. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The build order (choose format → scaffold → declare access → routes/hooks → admin UI → test) is clearly sequenced with a dedicated boundary-testing section, but there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop for test failures, so it fits 'most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' rather than the explicit-recovery anchor of 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A concise overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references — all 12 linked files exist in references/ — plus inline pointers at the point of use and a consolidated References section; the inline capability table is the decision-critical surface and is appropriately placed. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |