Content
73%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 well-sequenced, actionable workflow with strong approval gates and feedback loops, and it is appropriately self-contained with no bundle files. Its main weakness is repetition of the anti-prescription principle across the Important note and three separate rules.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'focus on the problem, not the solution / research informs scope' guidance into a single rule; the Step 2 Important note plus Rules 2, 3, and 4 all restate the same idea.
Consider moving the duplicate-search command variants into a short reference snippet so Step 3 reads more cleanly.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and imperative, but the 'problem not solution / research informs scope not implementation' principle is restated four times (Step 2 Important note plus Rules 2, 3, and 4), which is noticeable padding that could be consolidated. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready gh commands (search, list, create with full flags), a concrete issue template, and named tools (Grep, Glob, Read, Explore, AskUserQuestion); minor gaps remain in the templated placeholders like '<issue body from step 5>'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six steps are explicitly sequenced with hard validation checkpoints ('Do NOT proceed to Step 2 until the user has answered', 'Do NOT create the issue until the user approves') and a feedback loop (apply edits then re-show the draft), satisfying the validation requirement for an outward-facing action. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, so all content lives in one well-sectioned SKILL.md with clear headers (When to use, Process, Rules) and no nested references; at ~125 lines it is slightly beyond the simple-skill exception, keeping it just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |