Content
93%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, highly actionable skill body with concrete paths, patterns, and verify commands, plus a clear sequenced workflow and checklist. The only gap is an explicit error-recovery loop in the verification steps.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop after 'Build + test backend green' (e.g. 'if red, fix and re-run until green before touching the frontend').
Spell out the error-recovery path in the 'Verify end-to-end' section (what to do when lint or e2e fails).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean ~45-line body that assumes Claude's competence — no explaining of what handlers/validators are, and detail is delegated to composed skills via tight references rather than duplicated. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete file paths (Modules.{X}.Contracts/v1/{Area}/), class patterns (public sealed, internal static Map…Endpoint, .RequirePermission(...)), and copy-paste verify commands (dotnet build src/FSH.Starter.slnx && dotnet test ...; npm run lint && npm run test:e2e). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered 5-step sequence with checkpoints ('Build + test backend green', 'Lock the contract') and a closing checklist, but lacks an explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop for failed builds/tests. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections (Order of operations, The contract, Verify, Checklist) with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references to add-feature/add-react-page/add-entity/add-permission rather than inlining their detail. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |