Content
88%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, actionable merge-update skill with clear sequencing and strong validation checkpoints. The main weakness is mild verbosity in the conflict-resolution and ask-user prose, which could be tightened or moved to a reference file.
Suggestions
Tighten the 'Conflict Resolution Guidance' bullets into terser imperatives and consider moving the longer intent-analysis steps to a references file to reduce inline token load.
Condense the 'When To Ask The User' intro prose; the trigger conditions are already concrete and the framing paragraph adds padding.
Add a one-line pointer to where rerere/conflict-style rationale lives, or trim the explanatory sub-bullets under step 2 and step 6 to lean imperatives.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and command-driven assuming git competence, but sections like the nested conflict-guidance bullets and the 'When To Ask The User' preamble carry some prose that could be trimmed; below 5 for this padding. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands throughout (e.g. 'git config rerere.enabled true', 'git -c merge.conflictstyle=zdiff3 merge origin/main', 'ruff check app tests', 'cd frontend && npm run ...') covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints ('git diff --check', ruff/pytest, npm check:locales/typecheck/lint/build) and a resolve -> add -> commit/merge --continue feedback loop for the destructive merge operation. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single self-contained file with well-organized sections and no nested references; appropriate for a skill of this size, though the inlined conflict-guidance and ask-user sections are somewhat long and not split into reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |