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 admirably lean and well-organized for a simple single-purpose skill, but two of its three steps are vague directives without concrete commands or a validation/feedback loop. Adding executable detail to the verification steps would lift actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Make step 2 concrete: specify how to identify uncoded errors (e.g. the command output or file path to inspect) rather than "report if any new errors need codes assigned".
Replace step 3's vague "Check if error codes are up to date" with an explicit verification command and an error-recovery branch (what to do when they are not).
Optionally note where newly assigned codes should be recorded so the workflow end-state is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean three-step list with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Step 1 gives an executable command ("yarn extract-errors"), but steps 2 and 3 ("Report if any new errors need codes assigned", "Check if error codes are up to date") are vague directives with no concrete method or command, leaving the guidance incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are sequenced and step 3 acts as a verification checkpoint, but the check is implicit with no validation command and no feedback loop for what to do when codes are out of date, which the rubric caps at 2 for batch/error operations. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a short single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references; the single well-organized "## Instructions" section satisfies the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |