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, actionable instructional skill: the planning process is clearly sequenced, the guidance is concrete with good and bad examples, and the conversational intent is unambiguous. The main improvements are trimming the duplicated XML skeleton and tightening overlapping guidelines to push conciseness toward a leaner token budget.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicated XML skeleton from 'Output Format' — reference the structure defined in 'Ralph Command Structure' and show only the final presentation format.
Merge guideline 6 ('Include Context: Setup steps should include research/exploration') into guideline 3, which already covers proactive codebase research, to remove redundancy.
Add a brief completed example of a final ralph command (or move one to a reference file) so the expected output quality is fully concrete rather than placeholder-based.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely efficient — every section (role, command structure, process, guidelines, example, output format) adds guidance Claude would not infer on its own. Minor trimming is possible: the XML skeleton appears in full twice ('Ralph Command Structure' and 'Output Format'), and guidelines 3 and 6 both say setup should include research/exploration. This fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor at 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact clarifying questions to ask, a bad/good task pair ("Improve the UI" vs "Create a '/processors' endpoint that lists processors, mimicking the '/tools' endpoint"), a sample dialogue, and a specific quote/backtick formatting rule for output. It stops short of 5 because the example dialogue uses placeholders ('[Draft background based on discussion]') and no fully worked example command is shown. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five planning steps are clearly sequenced (Understand Goal -> Background -> Setup -> Tasks -> Testing) and the example dialogue demonstrates an explicit iterative checkpoint ('Does this capture the goal correctly? Should I adjust anything?'). This is a non-destructive conversational skill, so no validation cap applies; it sits just below 5 because the per-section confirm-with-user checkpoint lives only in the example, not as an explicit step in the process. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the single-file body (~160 lines) is well organized into role, structure, process, guidelines, example, and output-format sections that each belong inline; nothing reads as bulk reference material inlined from a separate file. Scored against the actual (empty) bundle structure, this is 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed' — the >50-line skill does not qualify for the simple-skill exception to 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |