Content
82%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 lean, well-structured, and actionable with a clear sequenced workflow and validation checkpoints; it falls just short of top marks on actionability and workflow clarity due to absent concrete git commands and an explicit failure-recovery loop.
Suggestions
Add one or two concrete git commands (e.g. 'git rebase origin/main', 'git push --force-with-lease') in the branch hygiene and reply sections to reach fully executable guidance.
Add an explicit failure/recovery loop in the verification section (e.g. 'If a check fails, fix locally and re-run before pushing').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean throughout — every line earns its place (e.g. 'Imperative mood, under 70 characters', 'No trailing period') and it never explains concepts Claude already knows, fitting the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, actionable guidance dominates: a copy-paste PR body template, explicit title rules, and specific verification requirements; it stops short of anchor 5 because concrete git commands (e.g. rebase, push) are referenced only in prose rather than shown. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The process is clearly sequenced (branch hygiene -> title -> body -> verification -> replies -> merge checklist) with validation checkpoints ('Confirm tests, typecheck, and lint pass locally') and a merge checklist, but lacks an explicit failure feedback loop, keeping it below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear section headers and content appropriately inlined for a self-contained skill with no bundle files; it does not demonstrate the one-level-deep reference pattern of anchor 5, so it sits at good-structure. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |