Content
87%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 lean, actionable recipe with copy-paste commands and clean structure, scoring highly on conciseness, actionability, and progressive disclosure. The main weakness is the absence of validation/verification around the sensitive share-with-edit-access step.
Suggestions
Add a verification checkpoint after sharing, e.g. confirm the permission was created via `gws drive permissions list` before emailing.
Guard step 2 against matching the wrong document — note that step 1's name query may return multiple files and instruct to confirm the fileId before sharing.
Clarify that DOC_ID must be substituted from the output of step 1, so the handoff between steps is explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and command-focused — a prerequisite note, a one-line summary, and three concrete commands — with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | All three steps are fully executable `gws` commands with concrete params and only obvious placeholders (DOC_ID), covering the common find-share-notify case copy-paste ready. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The three steps are clearly sequenced, but granting editor access is a sensitive permission change and there is no validation step to confirm the correct doc was matched or that the share succeeded, so workflow clarity is capped at 3 per the validation guideline. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no need for external references, and is well organized into a prerequisite block plus a numbered Steps section, qualifying for 5 under the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |