Content
96%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 an exemplary lean, action-oriented skill: concrete tool invocations with expected outputs, a symptom-approach table, a checklist, an error-recovery note, and a worked example ending in root cause. The only minor gap is organizational — a slightly long Tools/Example section that could be split into reference files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | About 85 lean lines of tool invocations with expected outputs, a symptom-to-approach table, and one end-to-end worked example — zero padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully concrete, copy-paste-ready invocations: query({query: "payment validation error"}), context({name: "validatePayment"}), a real cypher call-chain query, the gitnexus://repo/{name}/process/{name} resource, and a real recovery command (node .gitnexus/run.cjs analyze). Common cases are covered with filled-in examples and expected outputs. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered 4-step sequence, a debugging checklist, an explicit validation step ('Read source files to confirm root cause'), an error-recovery feedback loop ('If Index is stale → run analyze'), and a complete worked example that reaches root cause. This matches anchor 5; the operation is read-only, so no destructive/batch validation cap applies. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-sectioned, self-contained, and easy to navigate with no references needed. However, at ~85 lines the Tools section and worked example are borderline candidates for extraction into a reference file, and no bundle files exist — anchor 4 ('good structure; minor organization gaps') fits better than 5, whose ideal includes well-signaled one-level references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |