Content
88%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, actionable skill body: deterministic workflow with real validation and escalation, executable quick commands, and well-separated reference files. Remaining gaps are cosmetic — slightly redundant Consequence lines and one under-signposted reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but each of the four anti-patterns carries a 'Consequence' line that largely restates its WHY — minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed. Fits 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than 'every token earns its place'. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance throughout: a 7-step deterministic workflow, a referenced decision tree, and copy-paste bash commands (cp for the workshop draft, a heredoc for the decision log, evaluate.sh, bunx markdownlint) covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow has an explicit validation checkpoint ('Validate: Verify that the Must count does not exceed 60% of total effort') and an escalation/recovery path when rebalancing fails (split releases, extend timeline, or increase capacity), plus a publish step — clear sequence with explicit validation and error recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with three real one-level-deep reference files; the decision tree and workshop template are signposted from the body, but references/effort-balancing-and-tradeoffs.md is only listed in the References section — the rebalance step (step 6) never points to it — and the reference list lacks per-file descriptions. Minor organization gap rather than a fully well-signaled split. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |