Content
75%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-crafted single-file skill: concrete, rule-dense guidance with syntax templates and an explicit validation command, and no padding or generic explanations. The remaining improvements are small — trim the language-variation example list, add a fix-and-revalidate loop after 'lat check', and show what a validation failure looks like.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and rule-dense throughout with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; only minor trims available, e.g. the six-line multi-language source-link list (two or three examples would do) and the 'Bad Section' counter-example. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete templates (good/bad section structure, wiki-link syntax, '@lat:' comments in TypeScript and Python), exact rules (≤250-char first paragraph, 'exactly one @lat: comment'), and a runnable command ('lat check'). Minor gaps: placeholder bodies like '{ ... }' and no sample of reading 'lat check' output to fix errors. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections are logically ordered (what belongs → structure → IDs → links → code refs → test specs → validation) and end with an explicit 'Always run lat check after editing' checkpoint listing what it validates. Not 5: the fix-and-re-run feedback loop is implicit rather than stated. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the skill is a single well-organized file with clear section headers, and all content is overview-level rules with nothing that clearly belongs in separate reference files. Not 5: at ~160 lines it exceeds the simple-skill threshold where single-file organization alone earns top marks. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |