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 body is a concise, well-structured, single-purpose skill with executable commands and an explicit validation checkpoint. The main gap is the absence of an explicit failure/feedback loop after validation or patch builds.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and mostly assumes competence, with minor over-explanation such as 'This uploads your uncommitted and committed local changes as a patch build on Evergreen...' and slight H1/H2 title redundancy. It is not a 5 because a couple of sentences restate what the command does, and not a 3 because there is no padding of concepts Claude already knows. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides two concrete, copy-paste commands ('evergreen validate .evergreen/.evg.yml', 'evergreen patch -u') covering the main operations. It is not a 5 because there is no guidance on interpreting patch-build results or handling validation output, and not a 3 because the commands are executable rather than pseudocode. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence with an explicit local validation checkpoint before submitting, plus a patch-build test step before merging. The destructive/batch cap at 3 does not apply because validation is present; it is not a 5 because no explicit feedback loop (validate -> fix -> re-validate) is documented. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references and well-organized sections (overview, validating, patch build), qualifying for the simple-skill exception. It is not a 4 because no organization gaps are present given the skill's scope. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |