Content
71%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 delivers concrete, mostly executable guidance with a clear sequenced workflow and a review feedback loop, well-organized for a simple skill. Its main weakness is mild verbosity in the example-prose section.
Suggestions
Tighten the step 7 Good/Bad example and drop the 'Ask yourself' framing to reduce token weight while keeping the user-facing-first guidance.
Add a brief checkpoint before step 8 confirming changelog files are correctly named and follow the single-line format.
Clarify what counts as 'important commits' (e.g. reference the skip list in step 1) so the filtering judgment is less implicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but the Good/Bad example block and the 'Ask yourself' framing add explanation that could be tightened without losing the core guidance. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable elements (git log command, exact filename patterns, enumerated allowed types, single-line format) with only minor gaps such as the 'important commits' judgment being left implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence (1-8) with a validation feedback loop via '/prose-review changelog/ ... fix anything it flags'; minor gaps in checkpointing file naming/format before review keep it from a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple single-purpose skill under ~60 lines with clear Instructions and Example sections and no bundle files; well-organized and self-contained. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |