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 tight, well-structured instruction-only skill: concrete commands, an explicit failure taxonomy, and a coherent five-step workflow with decision rules. The main gaps are the absence of copy-paste filter examples for narrowing test scope, a redundant Quick Start that restates the description, and no explicit flake-confirmation checkpoint.
Suggestions
Add concrete filter invocations to the 'Narrow the scope' step, e.g. `xcodebuild test -only-testing:TestTarget/TestClass/testMethod` and `swift test --filter TestClass/testMethod`, so the narrowing instruction is copy-paste ready.
Trim the Quick Start section, which restates the frontmatter description, or replace it with a one-line pointer into the Workflow steps.
Add an explicit flake-confirmation checkpoint in step 4, e.g. 'rerun an isolated failure twice before marking it as a flake,' to close the validation gap before classifying async timing issues.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no concept explanations and no padding; every section instructs rather than describes. Not 5 because the Quick Start sentence ('run the smallest meaningful test scope first, classify failures precisely, and avoid treating every test failure like a product bug') substantially restates the frontmatter description and could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Names concrete commands ('xcodebuild test', 'swift test'), a six-category failure taxonomy, and decision rules for scope narrowing and reruns. Not 5 because the narrowing step lacks copy-paste-ready filter invocations (e.g., '-only-testing:TestSuite/testMethod', 'swift test --filter'); not 3 because the guidance given is executable and specific, not pseudocode. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear five-step sequence with decision points (use user filter vs. smallest likely failing target; focused vs. full-suite rerun) and a classify-then-rerun feedback loop. Not 5 because the 'mark likely flakes as such' guardrail has no explicit confirmation checkpoint (e.g., rerun twice before calling a flake); not 3 because checkpoints are mostly present and the sequence is coherent. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, no external references needed, and content is organized into clear headed sections (Workflow, Guardrails, Output Expectations) — per the rubric's simple-skill note this earns full marks with no bundle files required. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |