Content
61%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 concise and cleanly structured, with real one-level-deep references to existing bundle files. Its main weakness is that it is almost entirely a pointer document: it delegates all substantive guidance to references/guide.md without inline key details, validation specifics, or any indication of what the guide contains.
Suggestions
Inline the essential getting-started steps (or at least summarize what the guide covers) so the body is actionable on its own rather than a bare pointer to references/guide.md.
Make the validation step concrete: show how scripts/validate.sh is invoked and what to do when it fails, forming a validate -> fix -> retry loop.
Merge the redundant 'Notes' section with the intro to remove the repeated statement that evals/ and testing/ are non-standard directories.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and free of explanations of concepts Claude already knows. It loses a point because the 'Notes' section ('Neither is part of the standard skill structure...') repeats the intro's point about non-standard directories, a minor redundancy that could be trimmed — keeping it below the 'every token earns its place' anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete in form — a real markdown link to references/guide.md and the command 'Run scripts/validate.sh to check your work' — but incomplete: the body delegates all actual task instructions to the external guide with no key details, expected commands, or examples inline. This matches 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details', not anchor 4's 'mostly executable guidance'. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough two-step sequence exists (follow the guide, then run scripts/validate.sh), and validate.sh serves as an implicit validation checkpoint, but the actual work steps live entirely in the external reference and no validation detail or feedback loop (what to do when validation fails) is given. Under the simple-skill exception this could reach 5 only if the single action were unambiguous; here the core workflow is absent from the body. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Scored against the actual bundle: references/guide.md and scripts/validate.sh both exist, are referenced one level deep, and the reference is well signaled with a markdown link. The body is a genuine overview rather than a monolith. It falls short of anchor 5 only because the body is a pure pointer — it carries almost no orientation content (e.g., what the guide covers or when to run the script), leaving navigation slightly under-specified. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |