Content
88%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: a clearly sequenced four-phase workflow with an explicit confirmation gate before writing, a complete template, and a worked example. The only notable gaps are mild repetition between Best Practices/Constraints and the instructions, and no use of reference files to keep the main file shorter.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'Best Practices' and 'Constraints and Warnings' sections — several rules (max 3 lines for cause, concise title, confirmation required) are stated two or three times across the file.
Move the full BFB template and/or the worked example into a references/ file (e.g., references/template.md, references/example.md) and link to them from the main body, shortening SKILL.md.
Include the proposed-next-number logic in Phase 1 (e.g., how to derive BFB-XXX from the ls output) so the numbering step is fully deterministic.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence: no concept explanations, compact template, one worked example. However, the 'Best Practices' section partially repeats guidance already stated ('Max 3 lines for cause' appears in both the template and Constraints, and 'concise title' is stated in Phase 1, Best Practices, and Constraints) — minor instances of repetition that could be trimmed, matching the score-4 anchor rather than the 5 anchor where every token earns its place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance: a concrete bash command for checking numbering, a complete fill-in template, an explicit mkdir + file path for writing, and a fully worked end-to-end example (BFB-042) with real code (AuthManager.kt:34, a specific Kotlin fix, and a testable checklist item). Copy-paste ready with specific examples covering the common case, matching the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four clearly sequenced phases (gather → generate → confirm → write) with an explicit validation checkpoint: 'Only after approval' gates the disk write, and the AskUserQuestion step provides a feedback loop (edit-before-creating before any file is created). The write is non-destructive and gated by confirmation, so this fits the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps' anchor; below 5 would require missing or only implicit checkpoints, which is not the case. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-organized into Overview, When to Use, phased Instructions, Examples, Best Practices, and Constraints, with no nested or buried references (no bundle files exist, so there is nothing to mis-navigate). It is not under 50 lines, however, and everything — including the full template and the complete worked example — is inlined in a single file; moving the template/example to a reference file would match the score-5 anchor's 'content appropriately split'. Fits 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |