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 a tight, well-structured audit spec with a concrete tag taxonomy and an exact output format, assuming Claude's competence throughout. The only slight gap is that the workflow is implied by section order rather than given as an explicit sequenced process with checkpoints.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no concept explanations Claude already knows; reuses ponytail-review conventions by reference ("Same as ponytail-review") so every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives a concrete tag taxonomy with per-tag replacement guidance, explicit hunt targets, and an exact output format ("`<tag> <what to cut>. <replacement>. [path]`" plus the "`net: -<N> lines, -<M> deps possible.`" closer) — fully actionable for an instruction-only skill. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The single audit-then-report action is unambiguous with a clear output contract, but the workflow is conveyed via topical sections (Tags, Hunt, Output, Boundaries) rather than an explicit sequenced/checkpointed process, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external file references needed, and well-organized into clearly labeled sections; per the simple-skill exception this earns a 5 on organization alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |