Content
92%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, actionable, and presents an unambiguous single-step workflow; its main gap is that the provided bundle files are not referenced or explained in the body, so the file structure is not clearly signaled.
Suggestions
Add a brief note explaining that run_js renders scripts/index.html (which loads assets/webview.html) so the bundle relationship is discoverable.
Optionally link the bundle files inline (e.g., 'See scripts/index.html for the renderer entry point') so the structure is clearly signaled.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean, adds no basic-concept explanations, assumes Claude's competence, and every section (brief intro, examples, field spec) earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | 'You MUST use the run_js tool with the following exact parameters' followed by a precise per-field spec (names, types, 'or empty string' guidance) gives concrete, specific, copy-paste-ready guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a simple single-task skill with one unambiguous action (invoke run_js with the data JSON), satisfying the rubric's simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized, but the provided bundle files (scripts/index.html and assets/webview.html) are not referenced or navigated from the body, leaving the rendering mechanism undiscoverable; per the bundle-structure guideline this caps the score. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |