Content
78%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 lean, well-structured instruction-only skill with a clearly sequenced research procedure, concrete example queries, and a defined output format. Its weaknesses are the undefined "risk map" in the exit criteria, an anecdotal padding sentence, and the absence of a concrete probe example or sample test case.
Suggestions
Remove or generalize the 'Nimbalyst review' anecdote (step 3) — it is not actionable for future uses and adds tokens without guidance value.
Define the 'risk map' referenced in the exit criteria, either by adding a procedure step that builds it or by rephrasing the criterion in terms of artifacts the procedure actually produces.
Make 'run a cheap probe' concrete: give one example probe (e.g., a minimal API call or script) and a sample research note with its derived test case so the note format is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence ("limits, error semantics, retries, idempotency, auth, and webhooks"; "lockfile, `/version`, API version header"), with no concept explanations or padding. One sentence — "The Nimbalyst review found three applicable upstream issues this way" — is an unverifiable anecdote that adds tokens without general actionable value, fitting anchor 4 ("minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed") rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance is present: specific search strings ("n8n execution order v1", "fetch does not reject on 404", "React passive touch listener"), specific version-detection methods, and a note format ("source URL, version, claim, and the test case it produces"). But "Run a cheap probe that confirms the documented behavior" gives no example probe, and no sample research note or test case is shown — minor gaps that fit anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence with an explicit feedback loop ("probe → re-check after the probe") and an exit-criteria checklist ("Every unknown … has a note and a test case, or is marked as an accepted gap"). However, the exit criteria reference "the risk map", an artifact no procedure step creates, leaving a coherence gap — anchor 4 ("most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps") rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, has no bundle files, and needs no external references; its content is well-organized into Procedure, Rules, and Exit criteria sections. Per the rubric's simple-skill note, this scores 5 with just well-organized sections. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |