Content
92%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.
Excellent instructional content: a tight, branch-complete procedure with explicit validation checkpoints, error-recovery loops, and clear exit criteria, at near-zero token cost. The only gap is the absence of concrete commands for steps like checking out the base commit, which keeps actionability just below fully executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | At 19 lines the body is lean and efficient with zero concept explanations or padding; every step earns its place, and the single motivating aside ('In our lab, a test-tool stall produced a fake failure once') is a one-sentence justification, not filler. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout — 'loaded from the tester's branch, never your own copy', 'file TEST-DEFECT', 'mark CANNOT REPRODUCE', '3 attempts with logs', 'plain curl, a real browser' — but no exact commands (e.g. how to check out the commit matching the bug record's 'fingerprint'), so it stops short of fully copy-paste-ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Step 3 is an explicit validation checkpoint ('It must FAIL, and the failure detail must match the reported actual result') with feedback loops for every branch: pass → TEST-DEFECT, wrong-reason failure → fix the environment not the test, and a 3-attempt retry cap before escalating, plus stated exit criteria. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with well-organized sections ('Procedure', 'Exit criteria') and no external references needed; per the rubric's simple-skill note this earns the top score, and the 'qa-regression-tests' mention is a clearly-labeled counterpart pointer, not a buried reference. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |