Content
92%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 procedure skill: every step is executable shell, the workflow is sequenced with contingency handling and a hard final validation, and the one external reference is real, clearly signaled, and holds the right content. The only room for improvement is trimming a handful of justificatory asides.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and operational — a claim-shape table mapping prose patterns to shell checks, copy-paste bash blocks, and no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows. A few rhetorical rationale sentences ("however good the review inside it", "this is how this family of drift starts") could be trimmed, keeping it just short of fully lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Nearly every step ships executable shell: the report-skeleton heredoc, git diff/comm pipes for broken wikilinks and stale values, per-claim-shape grep/test commands, and the closing shape check. The only placeholders (<old value>, <page>) are inherent variables, not pseudocode. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–5 are clearly sequenced with the deliverable written first, a "No step is a stop" contingency section for absent MCP tooling, explicit error-recovery guidance (report shape violations and how to correct them), and a final validation checkpoint ("Both must print 3") that closes the loop. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body keeps the retrieval procedure while correctly splitting the exhaustive per-section checklist into references/checklist.md, a real file signaled clearly ("on a --full sweep, work through it page by page") and exactly one level deep. Sections are well-headed and easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |