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.
A tight, simple skill: two concrete executable commands organized into clear sections with an explicit pre-submit validation checkpoint. The only gaps are minor — a slightly redundant explanation of the patch command and no error-recovery guidance when validation fails.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with copy-paste commands and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but "This uploads your uncommitted and committed local changes as a patch build on Evergreen, allowing you to run the full CI test matrix" partially repeats the earlier bullet about the test matrix and could be trimmed. That minor over-explanation fits anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Two fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands ("evergreen validate .evergreen/.evg.yml" and "evergreen patch -u") cover the main cases, matching anchor 4. It falls short of anchor 5 because validation is shown only for .evg.yml and there is no guidance on interpreting or fixing validation output. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence (modify .evergreen/ files, validate locally, then patch-build before merging) is clear, with an explicit checkpoint: "Always run this before submitting changes to \.evergreen\/". It does not reach anchor 5 because there is no failure-recovery loop (what to do when validation fails, fix, and re-validate). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references, and its three well-organized, clearly headed sections (overview, validation, patch build) make navigation trivial. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, this earns anchor 5 on well-organized sections alone; no bundle files exist to verify. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |