Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured skill for a destructive operation. It clearly differentiates between two scopes, provides exact tool call parameters, and includes appropriate safety warnings. Minor verbosity in repeating scope descriptions across sections and explaining things Claude already knows (like what /clear does) prevents a perfect conciseness score.
Suggestions
Consolidate the scope descriptions — the intro, step 2, and schema rules all partially restate the same information about project vs session scope. A single definitive table or list would be more token-efficient.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but has some redundancy — the scope descriptions are repeated across the intro, instructions, and schema rules sections. The 'Important' section restates things Claude would know (e.g., explaining what /clear and /compact don't do). Could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete MCP tool call parameters with exact JSON shapes for each scope variant, clear schema validation rules (what's rejected, what's required), and specific parameter combinations. Copy-paste ready for tool invocation. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 4-step sequence with an explicit confirmation/warning checkpoint before the destructive operation. The workflow includes scope decision, user warning, tool call with exact parameters, and result reporting. The schema rules section acts as a validation checkpoint by specifying rejection conditions for ambiguous inputs. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a single-purpose destructive operation skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into logical sections (Instructions, Schema rules, When to Use, Important) that are easy to scan and navigate. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |