Content
90%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.
The content is lean, executable, and clearly sequenced with a concrete validation signal, making it an efficient single-purpose skill. The main gap is the absence of explicit error-recovery guidance and an explicit pointer to the reference file.
Suggestions
Add a brief feedback loop for the failure case, e.g. 'If it exits non-zero, report the failure and do not proceed.'
Explicitly link the reference bundle, e.g. 'See references/REFERENCE.md for evidence-gathering details.', so navigation is signaled.
Clarify what evidence to gather before running the check, since the skill assesses implementation quality against evidence.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is extremely lean with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line ('Process steps in order', 'Finish here.') earns its place and assumes Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides a fully executable command (skills/review-change/scripts/check.sh) with a precise output contract ({"ok":true} on stdout) and exit behavior (non-zero on failure), making the single action copy-paste ready. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear single-step sequence with an explicit ordering instruction and a stop signal ('Finish here.'), plus an implicit validation checkpoint via the script's non-zero exit on failure; however, it lacks an explicit feedback loop describing what to do when the check fails, so it does not reach the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with a clean, well-organized section and real one-level-deep bundle files (scripts/check.sh and references/REFERENCE.md), but the body never explicitly signals or links the REFERENCE.md reference, leaving a minor navigation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |