Content
92%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, concise instruction-only skill with a clear workflow and an explicit verification feedback loop. The main improvement opportunity is naming the specific Linear MCP tools so guidance is fully executable rather than tool-agnostic.
Suggestions
Name the specific Linear MCP tools (e.g. create_issue, update_issue, add_attachment) used at each step so the guidance is fully executable instead of tool-agnostic.
Add a short example of a well-formed ticket title and description block to anchor the "concise, specific title" and preferred structural-order advice.
Specify how to detect and handle missing source material (e.g. when no diagnostic URL or attachment is available) so the preserve-attribution rules have a clear fallback.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient — it does not explain what Linear or MCP is, and every line provides actionable instruction; assumes Claude's competence throughout. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance with a preferred structural order and explicit rules (e.g. "Keep source URLs clickable", "omit empty sections rather than adding placeholders"), but it stops short of naming the specific Linear MCP tool calls to invoke. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear Before writing → Create or update → Verify sequence with an explicit verification checklist and a feedback loop ("Fix omissions before reporting completion"). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, yet well-organized into clearly signaled sections (Before writing, Create or update, Verify) — meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |