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.
A well-crafted instruction skill: it is dense with project-specific, non-obvious facts, provides exact formats, examples, and commands, and defers policy to clearly signaled source-of-truth documents instead of duplicating them. The only weakness is that a few merge-queue verification and diagnosis steps name endpoints and refs without fully assembled commands, leaving minor executable gaps.
Suggestions
Provide assembled commands for merge-queue verification (e.g., a complete `gh api` call for the issue timeline and a `gh run list` invocation filtered to `merge_group` runs on the `gh-readonly-queue/...` ref), mirroring the fully written-out commands in the Reviewing section.
Close the reviewing workflow with an explicit next step after findings are identified (e.g., how blocking findings versus optional suggestions should be communicated and resolved), turning the implicit checkpoint into an explicit one.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body explains nothing Claude already knows about Git or pull requests; every sentence carries a HASH-specific, non-obvious rule (e.g., "The PR's `auto_merge` field remains `null` after a successful enqueue, so it is not evidence either way" and the clippy/cargo-hack divergence selected through `GITHUB_EVENT_NAME`). Lean and efficient; every token earns its place, matching anchor 5 rather than anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance dominates: copy-paste commands ("gh pr view <PR_NUMBER> --comments", the full "gh api" call with headers), exact branch format with worked examples ("ln/fe-1437-hash-monorepo-import"), an exact PR-title pattern, and exact commands ("cargo clippy --all-features", "cargo hack --optional-deps --feature-powerset clippy"). It falls just short of anchor 5 because the merge-queue verification steps name endpoints and refs ("GET /repos/hashintel/hash/issues/<NUMBER>/timeline", the "gh-readonly-queue/<base>/pr-<NUMBER>-<sha>" ref) without assembled commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Each workflow has a clear ordered sequence with concrete discriminating checks: contributing (branch name → PR title → self-contained description), reviewing (gather record and diff → establish baseline contract → separate blocking findings from suggestions), and ejection diagnosis ("Compare the failing step against the same step on the identical head in the PR-level run"). It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because checkpoints are implicit in the prose rather than explicit validate/recover gates — e.g., the reviewing flow never states what to do after findings are identified. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is compact and well-sectioned with no content inlined that belongs in a separate file, and its external references are one level deep and clearly signaled as sources of truth ("Treat [`.github/CONTRIBUTING.md`]... as the source of truth for contribution policy", plus the organization-wide PR template link). No bundle files exist and none are needed; navigation is easy, matching anchor 5. It does not exhibit anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps'. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |