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-structured, highly actionable body: concrete tool-call examples for every operation, explicit decision rules, and guardrails against the documented failure modes (malformed rootUri, remove-vs-delete confusion, guessing projectIds). The main gaps are minor over-explanation in the rootUri section and the absence of a post-mutation verification step in the workflows.
Suggestions
Trim the rootUri protocol explanation ("The cross-platform URI standard requires the protocol prefix... Remember: three slashes...") to just the rule and the two conversion examples.
Add a short post-mutation verification step to the End-to-End Flows, e.g., after create/update, re-run `ProjectQuery { mode: "get" }` to confirm the change took effect — this would also lift workflow clarity.
The folderName rule for Chinese/special-character titles could state what transformation is expected (transliterate vs. manually pick an English name) in one clause.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is tight overall — tables, terse decision lists, and concrete examples with no padding about concepts Claude already knows. Minor over-explanation remains, e.g., the rootUri mnemonic ("Remember: three slashes (file:///) = protocol file:// + root path /") and phrases like "disk contents are under the user's sovereignty", which keeps it at the efficient-but-trimmable score-4 anchor rather than the fully lean score-5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Every operation has a concrete, ready-to-use call example (e.g., `ProjectMutate { action: "create", title: "Q2 Marketing", folderName: "q2-marketing", ... }`) plus explicit input-transformation rules (bare path → `file:///Users/user/code/repo`). The guidance is fully executable and covers the common cases, matching the score-5 anchor; score 4 would imply missing key details, and none are missing. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The decision flow, end-to-end flows, and the "Forgetting to query first" guardrail give a clear sequence with an explicit pre-mutation checkpoint (run `ProjectQuery` to confirm the projectId before mutating), and the destructive `remove` action is explicitly guarded. It falls short of the score-5 anchor because there is no post-mutation verification or error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., re-query after create/update to confirm the result). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single well-organized SKILL.md with clean sections (Tool Inventory, Decision Flow, per-action sections, Temporary Projects, End-to-End Flows, Guardrails); no bundle files exist and none are needed. Per the rubric's guidance for simple skills with no need for external references, well-organized sections alone warrant a 5 — there are no buried references or content that belongs in a separate file. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |