Content
65%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 admirably lean and well-organized for its size, and its two architectural rules (crate-first logic, no Rust/JS duplication) are clearly stated as principles. However, it gives no concrete commands, file paths, or examples, leaving Claude to guess where the crate lives, how to check versions, and how breaking changes are actually made and shipped.
Suggestions
Add executable specifics to 'Breaking changes': the file paths where the crate and package versions are declared (e.g. Cargo.toml, package.json) and the commands to check or bump them.
Concretize the crate-first rule with a pointer to where the crate and its wasm-bindgen wrapper live in the FAST monorepo, so Claude can navigate there directly.
Turn the breaking-changes paragraph into an explicit numbered sequence with a verification checkpoint (e.g. confirm prerelease state, apply breaking API updates, verify the PR description captures the breaking change).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Two short paragraphs under clear headings with zero padding: it assumes Claude knows what semver and wasm bindgen are (linking rather than explaining), so every token earns its place. Fits the anchor 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The guidance is principle-level: 'check the crate and package version', 'update the APIs with breaking changes as necessary' — no commands, file paths, or code showing how or where to do any of it. Fits 'Minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'; not 3 because there is not even partially executable or pseudocode-level guidance. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | 'Breaking changes' implies a conditional sequence (check version → if prerelease, update APIs → capture in PR descriptions) but the steps are vague and checkpoints are absent — no instruction on where the crate and package versions live or how to verify the prerelease state. Fits 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'; not 4 because no validation or verification step exists. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is well under 50 lines with no need for external references: two clearly headed sections and one appropriately scoped external link (semver.org). Per the simple-skill guideline, this can score 5 with just well-organized sections, which it has. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |