Content
78%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 content is a tight, actionable, well-sequenced single-purpose workflow with a sensible fallback and a built-in verification checklist, held back only by an embedded version literal and the lack of an error-recovery loop around the Doctor check.
Suggestions
Replace the literal "v1.0.39" in the checklist example with a placeholder like "vX.Y.Z" to avoid time-sensitive detail, since the instruction already says to show actual version numbers.
Add an explicit recovery step after the Doctor check (e.g., "If any check fails, re-run the fallback command and report the failing check") to close the validate→fix→retry loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, but the checklist example embeds a literal version number ("v1.0.39") — time-sensitive detail that the rubric penalizes unless isolated in a deprecated section. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete, executable guidance with a real fallback shell command, but the main path delegates the actual upgrade command to the MCP tool's runtime output and the fallback uses a derived <PLUGIN_ROOT> placeholder, leaving minor gaps versus copy-paste-ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence includes a verification checkpoint ("Doctor: all checks PASS" checklist) and an MCP-failure fallback branch, but there is no validate→fix→retry recovery loop for a failed Doctor check, so it sits below the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At under 50 lines with no need for external references, the well-organized sections (# title, ## Instructions, numbered steps) satisfy the simple-skill exception for maximal progressive disclosure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |