Content
90%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 instruction skill with concrete API calls and a clear plan schema. Its main gap is the absence of an explicit validation/retry feedback loop around the plan-write and a slightly thin progressive-disclosure structure.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoint after the plan PUT (e.g., re-fetch the plan document and confirm the revision landed before commenting or requesting confirmation).
Consider extracting the detailed 'Plan structure' section schema into a referenced file so the overview stays scannable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-organized with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every section (When to use, Plan structure, Filing, Anti-patterns) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, executable guidance: exact API endpoints (PUT /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/plan) and exact field names (baseRevisionId, kind: request_confirmation, idempotencyKey, continuationPolicy) plus a concrete plan-section schema. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Filing the plan' section is a clear ordered sequence with a confirmation/approval checkpoint and a 'verify the created issue graph before closing' step, but an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop for the document write is only implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections with no bundle files needed; at ~70 lines it sits just above the simple-skill threshold, and the referenced companion skill is not a navigable one-level-deep reference. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |