Content
77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body delivers highly actionable, well-sequenced guidance with strong validation checkpoints for its destructive overwrite step. Its main weaknesses are verbosity in illustrative mock examples and lack of progressive disclosure, with dense tables kept inline rather than offloaded to reference files.
Suggestions
Move the large question-pattern table, section-classification table, and the mock audit-output example into reference files under references/ and link to them one level deep, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview.
Trim the 'Quando Usar' / 'Quando Nao Usar' sections since the trigger list already lives in the frontmatter description, and reduce the invented mock audit report to a compact schema rather than a full illustrative block.
Consolidate the duplicated governance/policy references (listed once in 'Governanca Global' and again in the kit/constitution blocks) into a single clearly signaled pointer.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is operational rather than explaining known concepts, but the ~250 lines include a mock audit-output example with invented dates/line numbers and 'Quando Usar/Nao Usar' sections that restate the frontmatter triggers, so it could be tightened. It sits above the padded level-1 case but below the lean level-3 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete file paths (docs/repo-audit/current.md, .bot/), explicit decision thresholds (<30d, >90d), copy-paste question templates ('Detectei X. Qual o objetivo de negocio?'), an audit-checklist table, and ready-to-use markdown template blocks, meeting the 'fully executable / copy-paste ready' anchor for an instruction-only skill. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Fase 1-5 sequence is paired with validation checkpoints ('mostrar diff e perguntar antes de sobrescrever', validating commands against package.json), a feedback loop ('iterar ate aprovacao'), and checklists, matching the level-3 anchor with explicit validation for the destructive overwrite. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and external references (policies/handoffs.md, templates/claude-md-output.md) are one-level-deep and clearly signaled, but all detailed content (question-pattern table, section-classification table, audit checklist, mock output) is inline in a single 250-line file with no shipped bundle files to split it into. This fits the level-2 'content that should be separate is inline' anchor rather than the appropriately-split level-3 case. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |