Content
82%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-structured, actionable skill body with concrete commands, examples, and a validation checklist. Its main weakness is minor redundancy between the PR-title and commit-message type taxonomies and the absence of explicit error-recovery loops.
Suggestions
Consolidate the shared conventional-commit type taxonomy into one table and reference it from both the PR Title and Commit Message sections to remove redundancy.
Add a brief feedback loop to the Pre-PR Checklist, e.g. "If any check fails, fix the issue and re-run the failing command before opening the PR."
Note explicitly that the checklist gates PR submission ("Do not open the PR until all boxes are checked") to strengthen the validation checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with tables, examples, and a checklist rather than concept explanations, but the "Commit Message Format" section re-lists the same type taxonomy already given under "PR Title Format", a minor redundancy that keeps it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete copy-paste examples for titles and commits plus specific commands (`make test-backend-app`, `make typecheck-web`, `make staging`, `make generate-api`) and an exact path (`web/src/api/generated/schema.d.ts`) cover the common cases fully. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-step workflow precedes a checklist with explicit validation commands, but there is no error-recovery feedback loop (e.g. "if tests fail, fix and re-run") for the checkpoints, so it sits below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clearly headed sections with no nested references and no bundle files to navigate, but the duplicated type lists across two sections represent a minor organization gap rather than the ideal split the 5 anchor describes. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |