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.
A well-structured best-practices reference: lean prescriptive rules, executable examples covering the common Swift cases, and clean one-level-deep disclosure into five real reference files. The only slack is a naming table and API-design bullets that restate knowledge Claude already has, and the absence of any explicit sequencing or validation loop — the latter largely because the skill is declarative rather than procedural.
Suggestions
Trim the naming-conventions table to Swift-specific rows (boolean prefixes like `isValid`, `case loading` enum conventions, `-able` protocol suffixes) — the generic PascalCase/camelCase/file-name rows restate knowledge Claude already has.
Replace the generic API-design bullet ("Prefer clarity over brevity. A name should read naturally at the call site.") with a Swift-specific call-site example or drop it in favor of the linked guidelines.
Add a lightweight feedback-loop pointer to the Quick Reference table, e.g. "run `swiftlint --fix` / `swiftlint lint` (see `references/static-analysis.md`) to validate style", so style violations have an explicit validate-and-fix step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dominated by prescriptive, non-obvious rules with tight examples ("Use `struct` by default", "Never force-unwrap (`!`) to silence the compiler", "function_body_length warn 50 / error 100"), but the naming table restates universal conventions (PascalCase types, camelCase functions, PascalCase.swift files) Claude already knows, and "Prefer clarity over brevity. A name should read naturally at the call site" is generic. This matches anchor 4 (efficient, minor over-explanation that could be trimmed) rather than 5, and is well above 3 since the bulk adds judgment calls Claude would not infer on its own. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Examples are copy-paste ready and cover the common cases: a complete `AppError` enum with `errorDescription` switch, an `actor Cache`, structured concurrency with `async let`, Swift Testing with `#expect` and `#expect(throws:)`, a Fake repository, and a concrete mistakes→fixes table. The few `{ ... }` fragments are signature illustrations (e.g. `func fetchUser(id: UUID) async throws(AppError) -> User { ... }`), not pseudocode gaps, so this matches anchor 5 rather than 4. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a reference/best-practices skill with no fragile multi-step procedure, and per-topic guidance is unambiguous ("One extension per protocol conformance", "Separate targets for libraries and executables"); the "Quick Reference: Common Mistakes" table functions as a self-check and lint enforcement is invoked ("Where the reference SwiftLint config ... is adopted, it enforces the hard ceiling"). Anchor 4 fits: clear direction with most checks present, but no explicit sequence or validate/fix/retry loop in the body itself — below 5's requirement of explicit validation steps and feedback loops, above 3 since nothing here (no destructive or batch operations) requires an enforced checkpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The overview body keeps core essentials inline and pushes detail to five one-level-deep references, each introduced with a scope description ("**`references/concurrency.md`** — Actors, task groups, async sequences, Sendable, isolation, continuations...") and re-signaled at section ends ("For actors, task groups ... see `references/concurrency.md`"). All five referenced files exist in `references/` and none nest further file references, matching anchor 5 (clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation). | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |