Content
92%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 tight, expert-level process skill: every sentence instructs, all commands are executable, and detail is properly externalized to repo-level documents rather than restated. The only blemishes are a single redundant authorization sentence and reliance on the reader to assemble the global order from two well-titled sections.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes competence ('Read the complete diff against the PR base and audit affected shared callers'), with every section carrying instruction rather than background. One minor trim candidate — 'Publishing and git operations remain subject to the user's authorization and repository rules' restates default behavior — placing it at 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than fully lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Commands are fully executable and copy-paste ready: 'python scripts/find_dependent_tests.py fla/ops/kda/chunk.py', 'FLA_CI_ENV=0 pytest tests/ops/test_kda.py', 'pre-commit run --files ...', and 'gh api -X PATCH "repos/fla-org/flash-linear-attention/pulls/$pr_number" -F "body=@$pr_body_file"'. Specific anchored CONTRIBUTING.md sections are cited for each requirement, covering the common code, docs, and performance cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is explicit and phased ('Read CONTRIBUTING.md and AGENTS.md first' through 'After review changes, rerun affected validation and update evidence'), with explicit validation checkpoints ('Reproduce a failure on the baseline before calling it pre-existing', 'Keep incomplete work in draft and leave claims and checklist items consistent with actual validation') and an error-recovery feedback loop for the documented 'gh pr edit' failure. Not anchor 4 because both checkpoint coverage and recovery guidance are complete rather than having minor gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files, and it deliberately defers detail instead of duplicating it ('contribution policy and template wording are not duplicated here') through clearly signaled, one-level-deep references to CONTRIBUTING.md anchors, the PR template, and the sibling fla-pr-stacks skill. This matches the simple-skill exception: well-organized sections score 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |