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.
The content is a well-scoped, lean instruction-only skill with concrete per-section guidance and a clear single external reference, held back only by the absence of an explicit ordered workflow and a worked example.
Suggestions
Present the generation steps as a short numbered sequence (gather context → search for duplicates → fill template sections → emit markdown block) to make the workflow explicit.
Add one brief filled-example bug report to anchor the expected output format.
Use markdown section headers (## Summary, ## Repro, etc.) to mirror the template structure and improve navigation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, giving per-section fill guidance without explaining what a bug is; only minor explanatory asides (e.g. 'This helps prioritize and design the right solution') could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, specific guidance — a named template path, a concrete title format `fix: [what is the issue?] in [where is the issue?]`, per-section instructions, and a strict 'markdown code block only' output — but lacks a worked example of a filled report. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The flow (read template, search for duplicate issues, fill each section, suggest title, emit only the markdown block) is clear and the task is non-destructive ('Do not create or modify any existing Github issues'), but steps are not presented as an explicit ordered sequence with checkpoints. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | For an under-50-line simple skill it appropriately keeps everything in one file and points to a single clearly-signaled one-level reference (../../ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.md), though the body uses flowing paragraphs rather than explicit section headers, a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |