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 well-structured skill body with a clearly sequenced validation workflow, specific tools and checks, and exemplary progressive disclosure to verified one-level-deep reference files. The main improvement opportunities are adding executable tool invocation commands and trimming mild redundancy in the Overview and Error Handling table.
Suggestions
Include one or two concrete tool invocation commands in the Instructions (e.g., the Spectral lint command and an oasdiff invocation) so the validation steps are directly executable rather than implied.
Tighten the Error Handling table by dropping the obvious 'Cause' column entries and leaving diagnosis detail to references/errors.md, which already expands on these patterns.
Add an explicit feedback loop to the workflow (re-run validation after applying fixes and only regenerate the report once findings are re-confirmed) to strengthen the checkpoint structure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — no explanations of what OpenAPI or JSON Schema are, and every section carries actionable content. Minor trimmable redundancy keeps it below anchor 5: the Overview partly restates the description, and the Error Handling table's 'Cause' column spells out fairly obvious facts ('Schema references a component that does not exist or has a typo'). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and specific: named tools (Spectral, graphql-schema-linter, ajv-cli, oasdiff), exact checks (status codes '400, 401, 404, 500', pagination 'page/limit vs offset/count'), and explicit output file paths. Per the instruction-only note, absence of code is not penalized since the guidance is actionable; the minor gap versus anchor 5 is that no actual tool invocation commands (e.g., a Spectral lint command line) appear in the body. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The eight numbered steps form a coherent sequence (locate specs → structural validation → lint → completeness → security → breaking changes → consistency → severity-tagged report with file:line references), and the Error Handling table supplies recovery guidance. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because there is no explicit validate-then-fix-then-re-run feedback loop stated in the workflow itself. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear overview body with well-signaled, one-level-deep references — references/implementation.md, references/errors.md, and references/examples.md are all real files (verified), clearly linked, and contain no nested references — plus a real scripts/validate-schema.sh. Content is appropriately split: workflow in the body, deep detail in the reference files. This matches the anchor-5 example structure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |