Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise and well-organized for a short, single-purpose skill, but its verification steps lack the actual commands and failure-handling loops needed to be fully actionable and workflow-clear.
Suggestions
Add the concrete commands for each verification step (e.g. the typecheck/lint/prettier/unit-test invocations) so the checklist is copy-paste ready.
Include a short feedback loop for failures, e.g. 'If typecheck/lint/tests fail, fix the reported issues and re-run before proceeding to the next tier'.
Specify how to run the playwright and electron package tests with the exact command or script path, not just the directory.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence; the only explanatory passage (the submodule staging gotcha) earns its tokens by warning of a silent failure mode rather than padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The verification steps name categories ('typecheck of modified packages', 'prettier of modified files', 'Unit tests') without giving the actual commands, so guidance is concrete in intent but incomplete and not copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly tiered by stage (cheap, bigger, milestone), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops describing what to do when a check fails, which caps a verification workflow at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | At roughly 25 lines with a single purpose and no external references needed, the two well-organized sections satisfy the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |