reducing-entropy

Use when evaluating designs, reviewing code, or refactoring - measures success by total code in the final codebase, not effort to get there. Bias toward deletion.

Quality

87%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is lean, actionable, and clearly sequenced with an explicit gating checkpoint, scoring well on conciseness, actionability, and workflow clarity. Progressive disclosure is undermined by a dangling reference to a non-existent file and non-link path formatting.

Suggestions

Create the referenced `adding-reference-mindsets.md` (or remove the reference) so navigation has no dead links.

Convert backtick path mentions into markdown links (e.g., `[references/](references/)`) for easier navigation, and list the available mindset files by name in the body.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and punchy ('More code begets more code. Entropy accumulates.') with no explaining of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place, matching anchor 3.	3 / 3
Actionability	Concrete decision rules ('Count lines before and after. If after > before, reject it'), quantified heuristics ('50 lines that delete 200 lines = net win'), and specific red-flag phrases give actionable guidance per the instruction-skill scoring note.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	'Before You Begin' is a numbered sequence with an explicit gate ('Do not proceed until you've done this') and the Three Questions plus Red Flags form a checklist, satisfying anchor 3.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The four mindset references are one-level-deep and well-signaled via an explicit load procedure, but 'adding-reference-mindsets.md' is referenced and does not exist in references/, and paths use backticks rather than links, matching anchor 2 rather than 3.	2 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

82%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description has an explicit 'Use when...' trigger and clear natural-language terms, making it complete and well-triggered. It is somewhat abstract on concrete actions and its broad triggers could overlap with generic review/refactoring skills.

Suggestions

Add one or two concrete actions (e.g., 'count lines before and after a change', 'flag net-growth changes for rejection') to lift specificity from abstract activities to concrete operations.

Narrow the triggers (e.g., 'when reviewing or refactoring code to decide whether a change should ship') to reduce overlap with generic code-review skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and some actions ('evaluating designs, reviewing code, or refactoring') but these are abstract activities rather than concrete operations, matching anchor 2; not anchor 3 because no multiple specific concrete actions are listed.	2 / 3
Completeness	An explicit 'Use when evaluating designs, reviewing code, or refactoring' trigger answers when, and 'measures success by total code in the final codebase... Bias toward deletion' answers what, satisfying anchor 3.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'reviewing code', 'refactoring', and 'evaluating designs' are natural phrases users would say when needing this skill, giving good coverage; not below 3 because the common variations are present.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'reviewing code' and 'refactoring' are broad triggers that overlap with general code-review/refactor skills; the deletion framing adds a niche but not enough for anchor 3, so anchor 2 fits.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: joshuadavidthomas/agent-skills
Path: reducing-entropy/SKILL.md
Commit: 516dee7

Reviewed: 11 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.