Content
92%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.
Highly actionable content with concrete APIs, named operations, explicit validation checkpoints, and error-recovery loops organized into a clear ordered workflow. Its only weakness is minor redundancy in the proposal-mode rules that a light edit could tighten.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and instruction-only with no concept-padding, but there is minor redundancy in step 2 where the plan-form rules and the Single-task proposal mode rules restate overlapping requirements that could be trimmed, matching the efficient-with-minor-trimming anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is copy-paste ready: a concrete API call (POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/resolve-from-comment with a JSON body), named cards (request_human_input, request_checkbox_confirmation, request_confirmation), named tools (call_api, set_dependencies, paperclip_block, register_deliverable), and specific counts (3–4 interview questions, 2–3 clarification questions) covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-step sequence with explicit checkpoints (persist acceptance before hiring, check for an existing child before creating one, verify the child document and file before replying) and explicit feedback loops (retry an interrupted write with the same message and decision, inspect conflicting results, revise the proposal and wait again), matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a single-file skill under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references; the body is well-organized as a short intro plus four ordered steps, so the simple-skill guideline applies and the structure fully earns the top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |