Content
86%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.
An exemplary process skill body: lean imperative checklists with no concept padding, a well-sequenced workflow ending in thorough validation gates, and clean one-level reference structure verified against the actual bundle. It falls just short of full marks on actionability (no example payloads or executable commands, deferred to official docs) and workflow clarity (no explicit gate-failure recovery loop).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, imperative, and explanation-free ("Never edit generated `dist/` payloads by hand", "Never publish from an unvalidated local tree"), assuming Claude's competence with every token carrying an instruction. Not 4: there are no instances of over-explanation or padding to trim; no time-sensitive dates or versions are embedded. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete specifics abound: seven official doc URLs, a distinct dogfood name ("<name>-local"), MCP smoke methods ("`initialize` and `tools/list`"), seven named validation gates, and an ordered file-creation sequence. Not 5: no example manifest snippets or executable commands are given (e.g., Codex "marketplace registration and plugin add/materialization" names operations without commands); not 3: the guidance includes far more executable detail than pseudocode-level hints, and deferring exact commands to current official docs is a deliberate, justified design. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Workflow section gives a clear 6-step sequence (classify scope -> define contract -> split source/outputs -> transforms -> dogfood -> validation gates) with explicit validation checkpoints ("Rebuild from source and fail on stale generated files", "Byte-deterministic rebuild check", install and cache-refresh smoke). Not 5: no explicit error-recovery loop stating what to do when a gate fails; not 4->3: checkpoints are comprehensively present, exceeding the 'most checkpoints' bar of the 4 anchor, so it sits between 4 and 5 and the recovery-loop gap keeps it at 4. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single bundle reference `references/related-skills.md` (verified to exist) is one level deep and clearly signaled twice ("prefer the authoring skills listed in `references/related-skills.md`" and "read `references/related-skills.md` when the user asks for skill links"), while the SKILL.md body stays a lean, well-sectioned overview (Evidence First, Workflow, Required Output, Rules) with related-skill and repo-example detail appropriately split out. Not 4: no content that belongs in a reference is inlined and no organization gaps are apparent. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |