Content
75%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, mostly lean instruction-only process skill with concrete file paths, an explicit verification checklist, and clear sequencing. The main gaps are an implicit rather than explicit validate-retry loop and no worked example of a completed OEP.
Suggestions
Make the validation feedback loop explicit in section 5 (e.g., 'If git diff --check or lint fails: fix the issue and re-run before opening the PR').
Add a short inline example of one filled-in template section (e.g., a sample Motivation or Proposed Decision paragraph) to lift actionability.
Trim redundant 'do not' scoping clauses that repeat the same boundary across sections 2 and 4.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence without explaining basic concepts, though a few 'do not' clauses and repeated scoping reminders could be trimmed slightly. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance—specific paths ('oeps/TEMPLATE.md', 'oeps/NNNN-short-title.md') and a real command ('git diff --check')—with minor gaps such as no example of a filled-in OEP section. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step sequence with a verification checklist in section 5 (verify links, metadata, numbering; run git diff --check and lint), though the validate->fix->retry feedback loop is implicit rather than explicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into numbered sections with no nested references and clear in-situ structure; at ~75 lines it slightly exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill threshold that would permit a 5 without external file splits. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |