Content
93%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 lean, actionable, and well-structured for a single-purpose skill, with executable examples and appropriate file references. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit validation checkpoints, which matters little for read-only API queries.
Suggestions
Add a brief validation note for non-2xx responses (e.g., check status_code / error.code and retry once on network_error) to make the workflow's feedback loop explicit.
Optionally note when to fall back from a targeted path to the meta/api-endpoints guard if an endpoint returns an unexpected shape.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean bullet structure with no concept explanations or padding; every line conveys non-obvious operational facts (base_url, max_items defaults, endpoint preferences, field schemas), assuming Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides a copy-paste-ready bash invocation plus three concrete JSON payload examples with real endpoint paths and parameter values, fully covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Operating rules give a clear light sequence (connectivity guards first, then targeted paths, then concise summary or save_raw), and the single REST-query action is unambiguous; however there are no explicit validation checkpoints, keeping it just below the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At under 50 lines and single-purpose, it is organized into well-labeled sections (Operating rules, Execution behavior, Input, Output, Execution, References) and correctly references the one bundle file (scripts/rest_request.py) with no nested references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |