Content
93%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 tightly written, highly actionable body: concrete templates, a worked example, a specific coverage checklist, explicit evidence rules, and a defined handoff format, with essentially no wasted tokens. The only notable gap is that the end-to-end validation procedure is conveyed through sections and rules rather than an explicit ordered workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence throughout — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, no padded sections, and every line ("The criteria are the contract — automated tests cover correctness, QA covers feature-level behavior") adds framing rather than filler. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully actionable: a copy-paste Given/when/then criterion template, a worked example, an explicit 8-item coverage checklist with concrete specifics (409/404, unicode, RTL, two users acting at once), exact evidence requirements, and a defined three-section handoff format. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The process sequence is implied by section order (write criteria → cover the eight areas → run the pass → capture evidence → quarantine/handoff) with real checkpoints ("A failing criterion blocks acceptance", "If you add a new criterion mid-pass, restart the pass"), but the overall validation pass is never laid out as explicit numbered steps, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | With no bundle files, all content is core methodology that belongs inline in a single well-organized file: clear headers, easy navigation, nothing that should be split into separate files, and no buried or nested references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |