Content
61%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 workflow with a clear six-step sequence and explicit verification, but its execution details are incomplete (ACQUIRE/LIST syntax unspecified, no output destinations, vague 'detect environment' step) and it lacks an error-recovery loop for what is a batch file-generation operation. As an instruction-only skill it is solid but not fully executable as written.
Suggestions
Add a fix-and-retry loop to Step 6 (e.g., 'If a diff fails or a file lacks ACQUIRE, regenerate that file from its shell schema and re-verify until zero deviations') to satisfy the batch-operation feedback-loop requirement.
Specify the ACQUIRE/LIST command syntax or point to where the protocol is defined, and state where generated shell files should be written (which directories, which naming convention).
Make 'Detect current environment, preselect IDE/CodingAgent' concrete — what signals to inspect (config files, running processes, environment variables) and how the multi-choose prompt should be presented.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean, assumes competence, and explains nothing Claude already knows; every section carries instructions. It falls just short of 5 because the 'frontmatter + ACQUIRE only, zero inline logic' rule is repeated in core_concepts, the process preamble, and the validation_checklist, and the scattered 'MUST' emphases add little. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps name concrete KB artifacts to LIST/ACQUIRE (e.g., 'ACQUIRE `skill-shell.md` FROM KB', 'LIST `configure` IN KB'), but the core mechanics are pseudocode-like: 'ACQUIRE <selected configs using TAG> FROM KB', 'Detect current environment, preselect IDE/CodingAgent', and 'Diff each file against its shell schema' are given without syntax, commands, or destinations. This matches 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete; pseudocode instead of executable code; missing key details' — above 2 because the specific KB targets make the sequence executable in outline, below 4 because a first-time executor could not run several steps as written. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step sequence is explicit and Step 6 plus the validation_checklist provide real verification, but this batch operation (generating many files) has no fix-and-retry feedback loop — nothing says what to do when a diff fails or a file lacks ACQUIRE — and the rubric's feedback-loop cap for batch operations limits the score to 3. It is not a 2 because validation is present and explicit rather than absent. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and the ~70-line body is well organized into role, when-to-use, core concepts, process, and checklist sections, with detail appropriately delegated to the external KB rather than inlined. It falls short of 5 because the body slightly exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill threshold and leans on an external KB protocol whose location is never pointed to. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |