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 efficient, fully executable, well-sequenced workflow for a single-purpose destructive-ish task. The only gap is the absence of a post-commit verification step, which keeps workflow clarity just below maximum.
Suggestions
Add a final verification step such as confirming the commit succeeded (e.g. checking the git commit exit code or running git show --stat) before reporting the hash.
Optionally note behavior when -S signing fails or is unconfigured so the workflow has a recovery path.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | A lean 16-line numbered workflow that assumes Claude knows git and explains no basic concepts; every line (diff check, log style, branch/ticket rule, commit command, output rule) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable concrete commands (git diff --staged, git log --oneline -5, git commit -s -S -m) with a concrete example of the ticket-numbered subject format covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered sequence with an explicit early guard ("If empty, tell the user... and stop") and a conditional ticket rule; sits just below 5 because there is no post-commit verification loop for the destructive commit action. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, no bundle files; per the simple-skills note it qualifies for a 5 with a single well-organized ordered list that is easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |