Content
71%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 skill is well-structured, concise, and self-contained with a clear two-phase workflow and checklist. Its main weakness is actionability: instructions name what to do but rarely specify the commands or tools to do it.
Suggestions
Add concrete tool/command hints for investigation steps, e.g. 'Read recent commits: `git log -n 20 -- <path>`' and 'Search for analogous code: `grep -r` / symbol search for similar function names'.
Specify what to look for during verification rather than listing actions generically, e.g. which test command to run or which config files to inspect.
Tighten generic platitudes like 'Respect module boundaries' and 'Match naming conventions exactly' into concrete, checkable criteria.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is tight with headers and brief imperatives and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but a few bullets ('Respect module boundaries', 'Match naming conventions exactly') are generic platitudes that could be trimmed, stopping short of fully lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Actions are named ('Run the test suite', 'Check linter and formatter configs', 'Read recent commits') but no concrete commands, tools, or specific execution steps are given, leaving the guidance incomplete for an instruction-only skill. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Before/During sequence with a 'Verify Assumptions' checkpoint section and a closing checklist provides most checkpoints; it misses explicit fix-retry feedback loops, but the work is non-destructive so no lower cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a compact single-purpose skill with no need for external references, and its sections (Before/During/Checklist) are well-organized and self-contained, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |