Content
35%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads more like a design checklist or review guide than an actionable skill for Claude. Its biggest weakness is the complete absence of concrete code examples—no Hilt module definitions, no @HiltViewModel patterns, no test replacement code. The workflow and guardrails are reasonable but remain abstract, making it difficult for Claude to produce correct, specific Hilt configurations from this guidance alone.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable Kotlin code examples showing at minimum: a Hilt module with @Binds/@Provides, a @HiltViewModel injection, and a test module override with @UninstallModules.
Include a validation step in the workflow, such as verifying the DI graph compiles cleanly or checking for common Hilt error messages and their fixes.
Replace the abstract example scenarios with actual code snippets showing input (the class to inject) and output (the complete Hilt wiring), making the skill copy-paste actionable.
Consider splitting detailed scope/lifetime mapping rules and test replacement patterns into separate reference files, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with links.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably concise and avoids explaining what Hilt or DI is, but some sections like 'When To Use' and 'Review Focus' contain somewhat redundant guidance that Claude could infer. The guardrails and anti-patterns sections, while useful, overlap conceptually. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides no executable code, no concrete Hilt annotations in context, no module definitions, no component setup examples. It describes what to do abstractly ('Decide what should be bound', 'Match lifetime to scope') without showing how with actual code. The examples section lists commands but no actual Hilt code patterns. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow has a clear 5-step sequence covering identification through handoff, but lacks validation checkpoints. There's no explicit verification step (e.g., compile the graph, check for missing bindings) and no feedback loop for error recovery when the DI graph is misconfigured. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content references handoff skills and official documentation links, which is good. However, there are no internal reference files (e.g., SCOPES.md, TESTING.md) for detailed patterns, and the content that is present is all inline without clear separation of quick-start vs. advanced material. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |