Content
71%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 overview body with clean progressive disclosure and clear verification mandates, but its in-body actionable guidance is largely procedural meta-steps that delegate the substantive OpenAPI work to the reference file.
Suggestions
Add one or two concrete, copy-pasteable OpenAPI examples or linting commands (e.g. a minimal Spectral lint invocation) in the body so core tasks are actionable without opening the reference.
Add an explicit feedback loop to the workflow (validate -> if errors, fix and re-validate -> only then promote) to elevate workflow clarity.
Deduplicate the 'When to use this skill' list against the description's trigger phrases to recover token budget.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and avoids explaining OpenAPI basics Claude already knows, but the 'What is covered' list, 'When to use this skill' list, and the description's trigger phrases carry some redundant tokens that could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete commands appear (./mvnw compile, mvn clean verify) and a real reference path is given, but the core OpenAPI task guidance ('Apply technology-aligned changes following the reference patterns') is procedural and abstract, with the actionable detail delegated to the reference file. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-step sequence is present with explicit verification checkpoints (VERIFY: mvn clean verify) reinforced by the Constraints section, though an explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop is not stated. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body serves as a well-organized overview pointing to a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference (references/701-technologies-openapi.md) that exists in the bundle, with detail appropriately split out. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |