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 well-organized instruction skill that keeps the overview lean, names concrete APIs, sequences a clear workflow with validation, and properly offloads detail to four verified reference files. Inline actionability and a tighter validation feedback loop are the main improvement areas.
Suggestions
Add at least one minimal inline code snippet (e.g. a bare AppIntent struct) so the most common case is copy-paste ready without opening code-templates.md.
Strengthen step 5 into an explicit validate-fix-retry loop (e.g. 'if routing is wrong, adjust the handoff path and rebuild') to formalize the feedback loop.
Trim a few philosophical bullets in Strong defaults (e.g. 'Treat App Intents as system integration infrastructure...') to sharpen conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence without explaining what App Intents is; a few bullets in Strong defaults and Notes edge toward philosophical restatement that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, named APIs to use (AppEntity, EntityQuery, AppEnum, AppShortcutsProvider, openAppWhenRun) with clear directives, and defers full executable code to the verified code-templates reference, leaving only minor gaps inline. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step Core workflow is sequenced with a validation step (build, confirm compiles, verify routing, summarize); it lacks an explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop but the operation is not destructive or batch. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that points to four real one-level-deep reference files (first-pass-checklist, example-patterns, code-templates, system-surfaces), each clearly signaled with its purpose. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |