Content
82%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 content is a tight, highly actionable six-phase workflow with concrete commands and validation steps, well-structured for navigation. It could improve slightly by adding an explicit error-recovery loop and trimming minor redundancy in the Notes.
Suggestions
Add an explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop in Phase 4 (e.g. 'If `go build ./...` or `go test ./...` fail, diagnose and fix before committing; revert the version change if failures are caused by the upgrade').
Trim redundancy between Phase 0 and the Notes section — the 'do not hard-code a version' point is already conveyed by the fetch step.
Clarify the precision rule in one place: the Notes repeat the minor-vs-patch guidance already given in Phase 1 and Phase 3.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence (no explanation of what Go or go.mod is), but the Notes section restates guidance already implied by Phase 0 ('Always fetch the live version... do not hard-code a version'), leaving minor trimmable redundancy. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready commands throughout — the fetch URL, `find` commands, `go mod tidy`, `go mod vendor`, `go build ./...`, `go test ./...`, and a concrete commit message format — covering the common cases fully. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced Phase 0–5 workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (build and test in Phase 4), but it lacks an explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop for error recovery, stopping just short of a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly navigable phase sections with no content that needs splitting into separate files, but the body exceeds the ~50-line simple-skill threshold and there are no external references to structure, so it sits just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |