Content
78%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.
The content is a tight, well-structured workflow that externalizes detail into a one-level-deep reference and assumes Claude's knowledge of the named design principles. It could improve by trimming minor redundancies and adding a lightweight validation/self-check step in the Report phase.
Suggestions
Remove the redundant opening line ("This skill reviews code against the canonical API Design guidelines.") since it restates the description, and trim "to ensure they are fully available in the context".
Add a brief verification step in the Report phase (e.g., confirm the report addresses all six analyzed principles before saving) to introduce an explicit checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence by not explaining CQS, KISS/YAGNI, or Contract-First, but the opening line restates the description and "to ensure they are fully available in the context" is mildly over-explanatory. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, actionable guidance (specific reference path, target-identification branching with an example, six named principle checks, a structured report spec, and a concrete save path) with only minor gaps and no copy-paste code, which is acceptable for an instruction-only skill. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence (Load, Identify, Analyze, Report) with explicit decision branches; validation checkpoints are absent but are not critical for a non-destructive review skill, leaving only a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that points to a single, well-signaled one-level-deep reference ([references/canonical_api_design.md], verified to exist) with the bulk of the guidelines appropriately externalized. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |