Content
42%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is well-organized with strong progressive disclosure and clear routing/reference structure, but it suffers significantly from lack of actionability—there are no concrete examples of output format, no executable commands, and the procedure steps are too abstract to follow without interpretation. The workflow has a reasonable sequence but lacks integrated validation checkpoints and feedback loops.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of the structured findings output (e.g., a JSON or markdown block showing a P0 finding with severity, location, impact, minimal fix, and confidence fields populated with realistic values).
Make procedure steps actionable by specifying concrete actions—e.g., step 1 could say 'Run `git diff main..HEAD` or read the PR diff; if no diff is available, ask the user for the target' instead of 'Resolve mode and target; stop if unusable'.
Integrate validation checkpoints directly into the procedure steps rather than having a separate Validation section—e.g., after step 2, add 'Verify each finding has all required fields (severity, location, impact, minimal fix, confidence); if any field is missing, revisit the evidence before continuing'.
Provide at least one complete input→output example showing a sample diff snippet and the corresponding findings-first review output to make the expected behavior unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably structured but includes some unnecessary verbosity—e.g., the 'Examples' section lists natural-language prompts that don't add much actionable value, and some sections like 'Anti-Patterns' and 'Philosophy' could be tightened. However, it mostly avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides no concrete code, commands, or executable examples. The procedure is described at a high level ('Resolve mode and target; stop if unusable') without specifying how to do any of it. The output schema is described but not shown. The 'Examples' section contains only natural-language trigger phrases, not input/output pairs demonstrating the expected behavior. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The procedure has a numbered sequence (steps 1-6) and the validation section includes some checkpoint-like gates ('Fail fast: stop at first blocking prerequisite'). However, the steps are abstract and lack explicit validation checkpoints between them—e.g., there's no 'if X fails, do Y' feedback loop within the procedure itself, and the validation section is separate rather than integrated into the workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill has a clear overview structure with well-signaled one-level-deep references to contract.yaml, evals.yaml, task-profile.json, finding.md.tmpl, domain-model-routing.md, qa-intake-routing.md, and subagent routing files. The 'Read when' annotations provide clear navigation signals for when to consult each reference. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |