Content
86%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, well-organized standards skill that assumes Claude's competence and provides concrete, executable verification commands. The only gap is a missing feedback-loop framing around the verification sequence and no full component code example.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop to the Verification block, e.g. "Fix all lint/typecheck errors before running tests; only build once tests pass."
Include one minimal runnable component example (props interface + functional component) to lift actionability from directives to copy-paste-ready code.
Clarify that the Verification commands are an ordered sequence (number them or add "then" connectors) so the workflow sequence is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean bullet list, a four-command verification block, and a single security sentence — no padding and no explaining of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete file-naming rules, an explicit export convention, copy-paste-ready commands (pnpm lint/typecheck/test/build), and a named tool (dompurify); falls just short of 5 because no full runnable component example is shown, only directives plus commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequenced verification block (lint, typecheck, test, build) with a cross-reference to api-patterns for server validation; minor gap is the absence of an explicit "fix before proceeding" feedback loop on failure. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single-purpose standards reference under 50 lines, organized into Conventions/Verification/Security with a clean one-level pointer to the api-patterns skill and no nested or buried references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |