Content
87%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-structured skill body with concrete field-level guidance and clean progressive disclosure to real reference files. Its main weakness is the workflow: the numbered steps omit explicit validation checkpoints even though validation (Spectral linting, example validation) is referenced elsewhere.
Suggestions
Insert an explicit validation checkpoint in the numbered workflow, e.g. after generating the spec: 'Lint with Spectral and auto-validate examples; fix and re-lint before proceeding.'
Add a short copy-paste OpenAPI skeleton (info/paths/components with one operation) so the spec-generation step is concrete and executable rather than descriptive.
Make the provider-verification step (step 7) a genuine feedback loop: 'If verification fails, update the provider to satisfy the contract, then re-verify.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-organized with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; each section (steps, output, error table, examples) earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete, field-level guidance (specific OpenAPI keys, status codes 200/201/400/401/403/404/500, security schemes bearerAuth/apiKey/oauth2) and name tools (Grep, Read); for an instruction-only skill this guidance is actionable without code. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8 steps are clearly sequenced, but validation checkpoints are only implicit — Spectral linting and example/schema auto-validation are mentioned as prerequisites or error fixes, never as explicit validate-then-proceed steps in the workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview body with well-signaled one-level-deep references (implementation.md, errors.md, examples.md) plus the generate-contract.sh script, all of which exist as real bundle files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |