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 body is a well-structured, actionable classification rubric that gives Claude a concrete output schema and specific, project-grounded examples for each effort level. Its main weakness is the absence of any explicit sequencing or decision tie-breakers beyond the final Note.
Suggestions
Add a brief decision tie-breaker: when signals span two levels, default to the higher and justify in effort_reasoning.
State the single-step process explicitly (1. Read issue + code exploration; 2. Match to a level; 3. Return JSON) to push workflow clarity to 5.
Clarify what 'code exploration output' refers to (the upstream skill's file listing) so the input contract is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence, with bullet examples earning their place as project-specific classification criteria rather than padding; only minor trimming opportunities exist, matching the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides a concrete JSON output format and specific per-level criteria with real, recognizable project examples (Zod, node-pty, ENXIO, A2A), giving mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps, fitting the 4 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The single task is unambiguous (analyze issue + code exploration, emit JSON) and the operation is non-destructive so no validation cap applies, but the process is described as a single sentence rather than an explicit sequence, keeping it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and is organized into clear sections (JSON Output Format, Effort Levels, Note), meeting the simple-skill exception that allows a 5 with well-organized sections. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |