Content
81%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 strong, highly actionable skill body: crisp workflow with routing, validation checklists, and well-signaled one-level references that all resolve to real files. Main weaknesses are minor code errors in the error-propagation example, undefined variables in a couple of test snippets, and a testing section long enough that it should itself be a reference file.
Suggestions
Fix the invalid Python in the error-propagation example: add the missing colon after `def foobar(...) -> RpcTentativeResult` and use `except Exception as e:` instead of bare `except e:`.
Move the Step 7 testing section (~200 lines) into a references/testing.md file and keep a short summary with the three test categories and key imports in SKILL.md, matching the pattern already used for resolvers and deprecation.
Define or inline the setup for undefined variables in test examples (e.g., `thing.id`, `orm_obj`, `orm_org`) so the snippets are executable as written.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense — routing tables, decision rules, checklists, and code with almost no filler, and its scarce prose covers Sentry-specific architecture Claude would not know (silo split, outboxes, resolver requirements). Not 5: Step 7 spans ~200 lines of test idioms and a few illustrative snippets (e.g., the non-abstract convenience method example) could be tightened or trimmed. Not 3: there is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete throughout: directory tree, the 12 registered discovery packages, decorator orderings, a verification grep command, a pre-flight checklist, and copyable test patterns. Not 5: the error-propagation example contains invalid Python (`def foobar(...) -> RpcTentativeResult` missing a colon, bare `except e:`), and some test examples reference undefined variables (`thing.id`, `orm_obj`, `orm_org`), so they are not copy-paste clean. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–8 are clearly sequenced with an intent-routing table, a decision rule for silo mode, a two-phase protocol for breaking changes, three test categories, and an explicit pre-flight verification checklist (Step 8). The destructive deprecation workflow has validation (disable at runtime → migrate callers → remove), so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. Not 4: validation checkpoints and error-recovery guidance (re-validate, migrate-then-remove) are explicit rather than implied. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | All four referenced files (service-template.md, resolvers.md, rpc-models.md, deprecation.md) exist in references/, are one level deep, and are clearly signaled at point of need. Not 5: the ~200-line Step 7 testing section is bulk detail that itself belongs in a reference file, keeping SKILL.md longer than an overview warrants. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |