Content
63%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 a well-sequenced, highly actionable analysis procedure with concrete commands, severity rules, and report schemas, plus good guardrails (read-only, approval-gated remediation). Its weaknesses are redundancy — the hook protocol appears twice verbatim — and the absence of any reference files, leaving the long inline protocol where a one-level-deep reference should be.
Suggestions
Extract the duplicated extension-hook protocol (Pre-Execution Checks and Step 9) into a single shared section or references/hooks.md, cutting ~40 lines of verbatim duplication.
Remove the off-topic shell-quoting note ('For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot"...') or move it to a reference on running the prerequisite script, since it does not advance the analysis workflow.
Provide a concrete template for the overflow summary and the zero-issues success report so the compact-report and graceful-degradation steps are as copy-paste ready as the findings table.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient operational directives, but the ~40-line extension-hook protocol is duplicated verbatim in 'Pre-Execution Checks' and again in 'Step 9', and an off-topic shell-quoting aside ('For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot"...') pads the workflow. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not verbose enough across the board for anchor 2's 'several padded sections'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance dominates: an exact command ('Run .specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks'), precise severity heuristics with examples, a fully specified findings-table schema with an example row, and explicit next-action command suggestions. It stops short of anchor 5 because some steps remain directive rather than copy-paste ready (e.g., 'aggregate remainder in overflow summary' and 'Report zero issues gracefully' lack concrete templates), keeping minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered 1-9 sequence with explicit checkpoints: abort with an error message if prerequisite files are missing, severity-conditioned next actions, and a user-approval gate before any remediation. The skill is strictly read-only ('Do not modify any files'), so the missing-validation cap for destructive/batch operations does not apply; it misses anchor 5 mainly for lacking explicit feedback/re-validation loops after the report. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section headers are clear, but there are no bundle files at all, and the duplicated extension-hook protocol is inline content that clearly belongs in a shared reference file (e.g., references/hooks.md) — matching 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline'. Structure is good enough to sit above anchor 2's 'minimal structure' but below anchor 4's 'most content appropriately placed' with well-signaled references. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |