Content
82%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.
A tight, architecture-aware skill body with concrete commands, clear area routing, and good verification guidance. Its main weakness is that the workflow and verification steps could form a more explicit feedback loop for changes touching shared contracts.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the workflow (e.g., 'Only proceed to broader tests when ruff and the narrow tests pass') to close the validate-fix-retry loop for changes touching shared contracts.
Turn the Tools section's contract notes into a minimal copy-paste skeleton (subclass shell, async run signature, permission declaration) so guidance is directly executable rather than descriptive.
Optionally split the eight ADR references and the BaseTool contract into a short references file to keep SKILL.md purely an overview and improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, table-driven overview that lists ADR paths and verification commands without explaining concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its tokens. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides executable commands (uv run ruff/pytest/pyright) and concrete API touchpoints (BaseTool, InvokeContext, ToolError, ToolPermission); workflow steps are guidance-heavy rather than copy-paste ready, a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered workflow plus a Verification section that sequences narrow tests before broader checks; lacks an explicit validate-then-fix feedback loop, so checkpoints are present but not fully closed. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with one-level-deep references to external ADR docs and no bundle files; appropriate overview structure with minor room to split out detailed tool/ADR guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |