Content
86%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.
An exemplary instruction-only review lens: token-dense, stack-specific search guidance, a well-sequenced method, and an explicit threshold/reporting contract. The only minor gaps are the absence of a worked example finding and an explicit verify-before-report step.
Suggestions
Add one short worked example finding under Reporting (e.g. 'Feed refresh button (app/views/feeds/_actions.html.erb:12) has no matching tool — core priority; fix: add a tool and document it in the prompt') to make the output format copy-paste concrete.
Add an explicit verification step to the Method, e.g. 'Re-confirm each reported gap against the tool registry before writing it up, to avoid flagging tools defined elsewhere in the stack.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient across all ~30 lines: no concept explanations Claude already knows, no padding — every section (Scope, Method, Threshold, Reporting) delivers novel, decision-relevant guidance in dense prose. Phrases like 'A new button, form or gesture with no matching tool is an orphan feature' carry definition, red flag, and vocabulary in one line. Matches the score-5 anchor: every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete guidance: exact search targets per stack ('onClick, onSubmit, form actions, button_to, form_with', 'tool() and the tools parameter of streamText or generateText', '@tool and StructuredTool', 'agents/*.md and skills/*/SKILL.md') and a precise reporting format with location, priority, and fix. Not 5: no worked example of an actual finding (e.g. a sample report line), so a reviewer must interpolate the output format from the bullet description — a minor gap. Not 3: the guidance is fully executable, not pseudocode or high-level hints. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear multi-step sequence: (1) check for agent integration at all, (2) locate UI-action and tool definitions, (3) focus on new/modified code, cross-reference actions against tools, (4) second pass by domain noun, then Threshold and Reporting. The Threshold section acts as a decision checklist. Not 5: the review is read-only so no destructive/batch validation cap applies, but there is no explicit verify-findings feedback loop (e.g. re-confirm each gap against the tool registry before reporting) — a minor checkpoint gap. Not 3: checkpoints are present via the Threshold and out-of-scope rules, not merely implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no external references needed, and it is well-organized into four clearly signaled sections (Scope, Method, Threshold, Reporting). Per the rubric's guideline for short self-contained skills, this warrants a 5. There are no references/ or scripts/ bundle files, so all content appropriately lives inline. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |