Content
75%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 content is a well-structured, actionable, and appropriately concise overview of a complex multi-step process, with verification checkpoints and a review checklist. Its main gaps are a placeholder in the code example, the absence of an explicit error-recovery feedback loop, and reliance on shared external docs rather than a skill-local reference bundle.
Suggestions
Replace the 'ParamAttrBuilder...' placeholder in the Step 1 code snippet with a complete, copy-paste-ready example so the guidance is fully executable.
Add an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop (e.g. after verifyModule or llvm-lit: 'if validation fails, review the error, fix the lowering/TableGen mismatch, and re-run') to strengthen workflow clarity for this rebuild-heavy task.
Move or annotate the 'LLVM 22' version pin so time-sensitive information lives in a versioned/deprecated note rather than the core prose, or confirm the version is part of a maintained section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body assumes Claude's competence (no explanation of TableGen, ISel, or CCState) and is mostly lean, but it carries minor padding (e.g. 'If you are unsure which multiclass to extend...') and pins a version ('LLVM 22') outside a deprecated/old-patterns section, which the rubric says should penalize conciseness. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete file paths (CallingConv.h, *CallingConv.td, *ISelLowering.cpp), named functions (LowerFormalArguments, LowerCall, LowerReturn), and commands (cmake --build --target <Target>CommonTableGen, llvm-lit) make it mostly executable, but the C++ snippet uses a placeholder ('ParamAttrBuilder...') leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–7 are clearly sequenced with several checkpoints (verifyModule + llc in Step 1, llvm-lit and negative tests in Step 6, a review checklist in Step 7), but there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop, which keeps it just below the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and the See-also and 'Read ... for terminology' references are clearly signaled and one level deep, but the bulk of the guidance is inline and the references point to shared ../../docs files rather than a skill-specific references bundle, leaving a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |