Content
88%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, highly actionable skill body with excellent workflow sequencing and validation for a destructive operation, supported by a properly signaled one-level reference file. The main weakness is mild verbosity and some inlined content (dependency commands, summary template) that could be factored into references.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated no-delete/no-replace and evidence-requirement rules into a single authoritative statement to reduce restatement and tighten conciseness.
Move the per-language dependency-update command list and the upgrade-summary template into a reference file (e.g. references/dependency-commands.md and references/upgrade-summary.md) to improve progressive disclosure and shorten the main body.
Trim or collapse the four recurring 'Ask yourself' prompts into one reusable self-check pattern to cut token overhead without losing the diagnostic framing.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Largely efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows (no 'what is Pulumi' padding), but the Principle section and repeated 'Ask yourself' prompts plus restated rules (the no-delete/no-replace and evidence-requirement rules each appear more than once) could be trimmed. Noticeably above the 'mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation' anchor but not perfectly lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready commands and code: `pulumi preview --refresh --run-program`, `pulumi state delete '<urn>'`, per-language install commands (npm/yarn/pyproject/go get/dotnet), and a concrete `import` code example contrasting wrong vs. right usage. Coverage of common cases is complete. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced multi-step loop (mermaid flowchart + numbered steps) with explicit validation checkpoints (re-preview after every fix, completeness check that every non-same resource is categorized) and feedback loops (fix Category A before B, repeat until clean, halt on any remaining delete/replace) — exactly the validation discipline a destructive operation requires. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The detailed diagnostic tooling is split into a real, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference (`references/diagnostic-toolbox.md`, linked in the body and References section), and the overview keeps the core loop inline. However the body inlines substantial material that could live in references (per-language dependency-update commands, the full upgrade-summary template), leaving minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |