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 tight, well-structured instructional skill: the procedure is sequenced with embedded validation, the protection rules are unusually specific, and the token budget is respected. The main gaps are undefined internal terms ('test-defect record', 'protected test directory') and implicit rather than explicit error-recovery loops.
Suggestions
Define or link the project-specific artifacts the body relies on — 'protected test directory' (give its path) and 'test-defect record' (where it lives and what it contains) — to close the actionability gap.
Add one short example of a smallest failing test (with the `area.behavior_expected` name and a behavioral assertion) so the naming and assert-outcomes rules are copy-paste concrete.
Make the feedback loops explicit in the Procedure: what to do when the test fails for the wrong reason (rewrite the test) and when it still fails on the deployed build after the fix (reopen the bug).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | At ~17 lines the body is lean and efficient: every rule earns its place ('Name it `area.behavior_expected`', 'No `skip`, `only`, loosened tolerance, or changed expected value without a reviewed test-defect record') with zero padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. This matches anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly concrete guidance: a specific naming convention, an explicit banned-pattern list (`skip`, `only`, loosened tolerance), and a layer-selection menu (unit/API/Playwright/workflow fixture). It falls short of anchor 5 because project-specific terms like 'test-defect record' and 'protected test directory' are not defined and there is no example failing test to copy. As an instruction-only skill it merits 4 rather than 3 since the guidance is specific and executable rather than pseudocode-level. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Procedure is a clearly sequenced 5-step workflow with two explicit validation checkpoints ('confirm it fails with the right assertion, not a setup error' and the exit criteria 'fails before the fix and passes after it on the deployed build, verified independently'). It stops short of anchor 5 because error-recovery feedback loops (what to do on a setup error, or when the test still fails post-fix on the deployed build) are implied rather than spelled out. This is not a destructive/batch skill, so the workflow-clarity cap of 3 does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, requires no external references, and the body is organized into three well-labeled sections (Procedure, Protection rules, Exit criteria) with no inlined content that belongs in separate files and no buried references. Per the simple-skill guideline this matches anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |