Content
81%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 maintainer workflow skill: clear sequencing, explicit validation and checklists, and concrete file-level guidance throughout. The slight redundancies in the warning/audience framing and the absence of any bundled reference files are the only things keeping it from the top band.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and efficient — specific file paths, invariants, and copy-paste commands assume Claude's competence with no padding of basics; minor instances could be trimmed, e.g. 'Do NOT install this on production Paperclip agents' is stated twice (lines 11 and 19) and the audience caveat is restated. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly actionable with exact file paths to touch, a copy-paste vitest command block, and a `git show` reference to a real worked diff; minor gaps remain because no full implementation code template is given for the new kind itself (appropriate for a novel kind, hence 4 not 3). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step ordered sequence (shared contract -> server -> UI -> CLI/MCP/SDK -> agent guidance) with rationale for ordering, an explicit validation checkpoint ('Tests to run before requesting review'), an error-recovery note (NODE_ENV fix), and a pre-merge checklist, matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly signaled sections with a one-level-deep external pointer (the PAP-10415 plan doc and the `git show 4d5322c82` diff); no bundle files exist so all detail is inline, and the long per-step invariant lists are appropriately placed within their step sections rather than scattered. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |