Content
86%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, well-structured, instruction-only skill: a tightly written six-step process with concrete KB commands, exact file names, an explicit exclusion set, and a real verification/HITL gate. Its main gaps are a few vague or placeholder directives in Steps 1 and 5 and the absence of an explicit fix-and-re-verify loop after Step 6 verification.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, imperative, and assumption-respecting: every line is a directive ("LIST `configure` IN KB with XML format", "Embed Rosetta version marker (e.g., 'R2.0')", "Preserve skill subdirectory structures") with zero background explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It matches the anchor 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Most steps are concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: named commands (LIST/ACQUIRE), exact file names (`rules/local-files-mode.md`, `list-all-output.md`, `rules/bootstrap-*.md`), a specific exclusion set, and a version-marker example. It falls short of 5 because some steps are placeholders or vague — "ACQUIRE <selected configs using TAG> FROM KB", "use common standards to reduce copies", and "write shared content to common location where possible" give no exact command form or criterion; it is above 3 because the overwhelming majority of guidance names concrete operations and paths. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps with an explicit Step 6 verification gate (counts vs. filtered list, no absolute paths, version marker present, merged ACQUIRE content, upgrade diff summary) plus a separate <validation_checklist> and HITL confirmation — satisfying the rubric's requirement that batch operations have validation, so it is well above the cap of 3. It misses 5 only because there is no explicit error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., 'if verification fails, fix and re-verify') — verification is listed but the failure path is unspecified. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and none are referenced from the body, so there is nothing to validate or penalize for reference depth. The single file is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (<role>, <when_to_use_skill>, <core_concepts>, <process>, <validation_checklist>, <pitfalls>), no content that clearly belongs in a separate file is inlined, and navigation is trivial — matching the well-organized-sections ideal. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |