Content
81%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 body is a highly actionable, well-sequenced credential-gating policy: exact tool names and arguments, verbatim user-facing questions, executable helper commands, hard-stop checkpoints, and error-recovery loops. Its one real weakness is redundancy — the migration exception, the reuse-vs-new decision, and env-file preference rules are each restated across two or three sections.
Suggestions
State the model/prompt-migration exception once (e.g., in 'When To Use') and refer back to it from 'Coordination With Implementation Skills' and 'Mandatory First Step' instead of restating it three times.
Consolidate the reuse-vs-new question into a single authoritative section — it is currently specified in 'Mandatory First Step', 'Credential Decision Messages', and Workflow step 2 — and keep the other sections as brief pointers.
Deduplicate repeated guidance such as 'prefer ignored or untracked env files; avoid tracked targets', which appears in both Safety Rules and Workflow step 1.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body contains no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but key rules are duplicated: the model/prompt-migration exception is restated in "When To Use", "Coordination With Implementation Skills", and "Mandatory First Step"; the reuse-vs-new question appears in "Mandatory First Step", "Credential Decision Messages", and Workflow step 2; and "prefer ignored or untracked env files" repeats in Safety Rules and Workflow step 1. This is more than anchor 4's "minor instances of over-explanation", so anchor 3 ("mostly efficient but... could be tightened") is the best fit, while clearly above anchor 2's padded verbosity. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: exact tool contracts ("call `open_codex_api_key_setup` directly with no arguments (`{}`)", connector id `connector_2de447f3f15448ebab48783d7e4f5d81`), a verbatim user-facing fallback question ("Save the new key to <path>? Reply yes to continue, another workspace-relative env-file path to change it, or decline."), and complete copy-paste-ready `prepare`/`decrypt` bash commands. This matches anchor 5 ("fully executable; copy-paste ready; covers the common cases") across picker, text-only fallback, and tracked-target branches. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step flow has explicit validation checkpoints and hard stops ("Stop until the user answers", "end the current turn immediately and wait for the widget-generated follow-up prompt"), error-recovery feedback loops ("if unavailable or auth fails, ask the user to connect OpenAI Platform from `/apps`... then retry `tool_search`"; "If it is declined or canceled, stop"), a checklist-style Mandatory First Step, destination confirmation and tracked-target checks before any secret write, and a final verify step. This matches anchor 5 ("explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists"); the destructive/batch cap does not apply because validation is present throughout. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single reference is clearly signaled, one level deep, and real ("`references/evals.md`: trigger and routing eval cases for this skill" — verified to exist and match its description), and the body is well-sectioned with descriptive headers. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because all detailed branch-handling policy (picker sub-procedure, exact message wording, connector retry logic) remains inline in a ~140-line body rather than being split out, a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |