Content
85%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 concise, well-organized reference that is strong on naming conventions, status-code selection, and versioning, and it respects token budget admirably. Its weakness is actionability: the Pagination and Error responses sections state goals ('Return a structured response', 'Include enough info for the client to act on') without any concrete structure or example, leaving the reader to invent the schema.
Suggestions
Add a concrete pagination envelope to the Pagination section, e.g. `{ "data": [...], "next_cursor": "..." }` with a note on cursor vs. offset, so 'Return a structured response' becomes executable guidance.
Show an explicit error response schema in the Error responses section, e.g. `{ "error": { "code": "string", "message": "string", "field": "optional" } }`, so clients know exactly what shape to expect.
Illustrate the Versioning choice with one concrete example of each option (e.g. `GET /v1/users` vs `Accept: application/vnd.api+json;version=1`) to remove the remaining ambiguity about what each looks like.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and prescriptive throughout — e.g., "Pick the right code. Don't return 200 with an error body." and "Use kebab-case for multi-word path segments (`/access-tokens`, not `/access_tokens` or `/accessTokens`)" — with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Resources/naming, status codes, kebab-case, and versioning give concrete, copy-ready guidance, but "For list endpoints, paginate. Return a structured response." and "Errors should be useful. Include enough info for the client to act on." are abstract with no fields, envelope shape, or example schema. Two of six sections lack the key details needed to execute, matching the score-3 anchor ('some concrete guidance but incomplete'); it is not 4 because these gaps are entire sections rather than minor ones. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a single-purpose reference skill (under 50 lines, no multi-step process) whose sections follow a logical order (naming → status codes → pagination → versioning → errors), and it involves no destructive or batch operations that would require validation checkpoints. Per the rubric's simple-skill exception, the unambiguous single action warrants a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines with well-organized section headers and no need for external references — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle files exist and none are cited. Per the rubric guideline for short skills needing no external files, well-organized sections alone merit a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |