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.
The body is concise and highly actionable, with concrete tool usage and a clear multi-step workflow. The main weakness is workflow_clarity: Step 4 reports that the command 'has started' but provides no validation, result-checking, or error-recovery feedback loop for asynchronous execution, which caps that dimension at 2.
Suggestions
Add a validation/feedback loop to Step 4: after triggering the asynchronous command, describe how to check execution results or surface failures (e.g., inspect the tool's return status) and what to tell the user on success vs. error.
Clarify error handling when run_slash_command fails or permission is denied - the Important Notes mention automatic permission checks but give no recovery guidance.
For commands that support parameters, note how to confirm a command's accepted arguments before executing (e.g., via list_slash_commands / query_plugin_capabilities) to avoid malformed invocations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence - it skips explaining what slash commands or plugins are and jumps straight to a When-to-Use list, tool descriptions, and a numbered workflow. It is not level 2 because there is no unnecessary explanatory padding; every section earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, executable guidance - exact tool names with their returned fields ('returns command name, description, and category'), an exact invocation format ('/command_name arg1 arg2'), and worked parameter examples ('/redo <history_id>', '/sites disable <site_id>'). It is not level 2 because the guidance is specific and copy-paste ready rather than pseudocode or incomplete. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step sequence is clearly ordered (identify intent -> find matching command -> extract parameters and execute -> report result), but Step 4 merely says to 'inform the user that the command has started' with no validation or error-recovery feedback loop for the asynchronous execution. It is not level 3 because there is no explicit validation/checkpoint or error-handling loop, and not level 1 because the steps are present and sequenced. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no external bundle files, organized into clear sections (When to Use, Tools, Workflow, Important Notes) that serve as effective in-file navigation. Per the simple-skills scoring note, well-organized sections suffice for level 3 here. It is not level 2 because the content is appropriately structured with no monolithic wall of text or missing organization. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |