Content
93%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.
The body is an exemplary lean workflow: exact commands, a concrete branch-naming convention, an explicit pre-commit verification step, and precise output-format rules. Its only gap is the missing failure-handling loop for the cargo checks.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean numbered workflow with zero padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every token (branch format, check flags, PR title limits) earns its place, matching the "lean and efficient" anchor exactly. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: exact commands for the username lookup (`gh api user --jq .login`), formatting and lint checks with precise cargo flags, an explicit branch-name format (`<username>/<feature_name>`), and concrete commit/PR constraints (one-line message, under 70 chars, no attribution). Per the rubric's scoring note, the absence of literal git push/gh pr create commands in this instruction-style skill is not penalized because every step is unambiguous and actionable. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five steps are clearly sequenced and include an explicit verification checkpoint (step 3's fmt/clippy checks before commit and push), but there is no error-recovery feedback loop telling Claude to fix issues and re-run if the checks fail, which keeps it below the anchor-5 requirement of explicit feedback loops. It is above a 3 because a real validation checkpoint is present, not merely implied. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a sub-50-line, single-task skill with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so per the judging guidelines a well-organized self-contained body merits a 5; the numbered list plus trailing constraints paragraph is cleanly organized with nothing that belongs in a separate file. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |