Content
61%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 delivers strong, executable CLI guidance with an unusually well-handled connection lifecycle (state polling, client-action states, error fields). Its main weaknesses are the dead 'Step 2' reference, missing verification guidance for write operations, and padded noise from the 'No description' actions table and bare object list.
Suggestions
Label the workflow steps explicitly (Step 1: connect, Step 2: search actions, Step 3: run) so the 'skip to Step 2' reference resolves, and add a verification step before/after create/update actions (e.g. re-run `get-proposal` to confirm the change).
Replace the 'No description' table entries with one-line real descriptions, or drop the table and show a worked example such as `membrane action list --intent "list proposals"` followed by a real `action run` call with an `--input` payload.
Cut the filler line 'Use action names and parameters as needed' and either annotate the object list with what each record type represents or move it into the description of the actions table.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The command sections are tight and executable, but the body carries real padding: a 20-row 'Popular actions' table where every description literally reads 'No description', a 23-item bullet list of bare object names with no annotations, and filler like 'Use action names and parameters as needed'. Mostly efficient with some unnecessary content, matching the score-3 anchor; not score 2 because the core guidance itself is not verbose. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-paste-ready CLI commands cover install, login (including the headless completion flow), connection setup, action discovery, action execution with JSON input, and proxy requests with a flag table. Not score 5 because no worked end-to-end example exists — there is no sample `action list` call with a real intent or a real `action run` invocation showing an actual input payload for a common case like listing proposals. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The connection setup has a genuine sequence with feedback checkpoints (poll with `--wait`, handle `CLIENT_ACTION_REQUIRED`, inspect the `error` field), but the flow is incoherent in places — the text says 'skip to **Step 2**' yet no Step 2 is labeled anywhere — and destructive create/update actions (create proposal, update proposal) have no verification or error-recovery guidance. Missing validation for destructive/batch operations caps this dimension at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the single-file body is well-sectioned with clear headers (Install, Authentication, Connecting, Searching, Running, Proxy, Best practices) placing most content appropriately inline. Not score 5 because the 'Popular actions' table is API-reference material that would sit better in a separate reference file, trimming the main skill body. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |