Content
87%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A compact, well-structured, and actionable skill body that respects token budget and gives copy-paste-ready commands. The main gap is the absence of an explicit verification step in the run workflow.
Suggestions
Add a verification checkpoint to the run workflow, e.g. after running, confirm the result file exists at /tmp/log/plugins/last_result.<PREF>.log and check its contents before the backend deletes it.
Replace the `add_object(...)` ellipsis with a minimal one-line concrete example so the data-contract snippet is fully copy-paste ready.
Note how to confirm a plugin ran successfully (exit code or expected log line) so Claude can detect silent failures.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean reference material (settings keys, phases, formats, a runnable command) with no boilerplate explaining concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives a fully executable command ("python3 front/plugins/<code_name>/script.py") and concrete API calls (Plugin_Objects, add_object, write_result_file) with real method names; the lone "..." placeholder is a justified fill-in, not pseudocode. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step "Expected Workflow" is clearly sequenced with a useful timing warning, but it lacks any explicit validation/verification checkpoint that the level-3 anchor requires. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | With no bundle files present and no need for external references, the body is organized into well-signaled sections (Workflow, Structure, Settings, Data Contract, Phases, Formats) that satisfy the level-3 simple-skill allowance. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |