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 body is a lean, actionable, well-structured single-purpose skill with executable examples and a verified bundle reference. The only gap is the absence of an explicit failure-handling feedback loop.
Suggestions
Add a short failure-recovery step, e.g. "On ok=false, inspect error.code/message, adjust path/params, and re-run the same request" to give a concrete validate-then-retry loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient: lists required/optional fields and a few executable JSON patterns with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a copy-paste bash invocation plus four concrete JSON input patterns covering single-entry, search, bare, and cross-reference cases — fully executable guidance for the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The single action (pipe JSON into the script) is unambiguous and read-only so the destructive/batch cap does not apply, but there is no explicit validate-on-failure feedback loop despite documented error.code returns. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Operating rules, Execution behavior, Input, Output, Execution, References) and a real, correctly referenced bundle file (scripts/rest_request.py), satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |