Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a concise, well-organized API reference with an executable toast.promise example. Its main weakness is the Dialog section, which describes method contracts but lacks callable usage examples.
Suggestions
Add a short executable example for at least one Dialog method (e.g. a Dialog.confirm call showing resolve/reject handling) to make it copy-paste ready.
Consider showing how Dialog and toast are imported beyond the toast import already noted, so usage is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: short bullet descriptions per method plus one concise example, assuming Claude knows what dialogs and toasts are. Not score 2 because there is no unnecessary explanation or padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The toast.promise example is real, executable TypeScript, but the Dialog methods only describe return contracts with no calling code. Not score 3 (Dialog usage is not copy-paste ready) nor score 1 (concrete code and specific contracts are present). | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a simple single-purpose API reference where each method's behavior is unambiguously described; per the simple-skills note, a single clear action can score 3. Not score 2 (no multi-step ambiguity) nor score 1 (steps per method are clear). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed, organized into two clear sections (Dialog, toast). Per the rubric, such a simple skill can score 3 with well-organized sections. Not score 2 (organization is clean) nor score 1 (not a monolithic wall). | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |