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-structured, information-dense body: concrete file names, signals, and worked examples make the descriptive workflow highly actionable, and its short self-contained length suits progressive disclosure perfectly. Weakest points are the absence of an explicit validation/verification loop in the workflow and minor trimmable rationale prose and repetition between Workflow and Rules.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verify step after PRESENT, e.g. "re-read schema.ts and the function list and confirm every claim in the map is traceable to one of them".
Trim the motivational intro sentence and merge duplicated guidance (source-of-truth, authz handoff, next-verb pointers each appear in both Workflow and Rules) into one place.
Make the deployment-introspection path executable by naming the actual MCP tool calls for functionSpec/tables rather than just "via the official MCP".
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with operational content and explains nothing Claude already knows, but includes minor trimmable padding — the motivational intro ("Before you can safely change an app you have to know what it is — and reading 15 function files top-to-bottom is slow and error-prone") and editorial asides like "the single most important thing a newcomer needs". It is not a 3 because none of this is concept explanation, just mild rationale prose with some repetition between Workflow steps and Rules. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout — exact files (schema.ts, auth.config.ts, convex.config.ts, http.ts), exact signals (v.id("other") fields, indexes, functionSpec/tables via MCP), an example FK graph, and a worked flow — but it stops short of executable commands (e.g., how to actually fetch functionSpec via the MCP), so it sits at 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7 DETECT→DATA MODEL→FUNCTION SURFACE→AUTH→COMPONENTS→FLOW→PRESENT steps are clearly sequenced with a branching detection step and an accuracy checkpoint ("if something is ambiguous, say so rather than guessing"), but there is no explicit verify/re-check loop, e.g. re-confirming the produced map against the source — so 4, not 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files (none exist in the bundle), and is cleanly organized into an intro, a numbered Workflow, and a Rules section — per the judging guidelines this earns a 5 for a self-contained short skill. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |