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.
A well-structured operations skill: a sequenced workflow with inspection, confirmation, and validation gates, concrete CLI tools and API paths, and clearly signaled one-level-deep references. The main defects are a referenced-but-missing planning template (a broken navigation pointer used at a critical workflow step) and the absence of an explicit validation-failure/rollback feedback loop.
Suggestions
Create the missing `templates/proxmox-operation-plan.md` (referenced in workflow step 4 and in Bundled resources but absent from the bundle), or remove the two references to it.
Add an explicit error-recovery loop to the workflow, e.g., after step 7: "If validation fails, execute the recorded rollback method, re-inspect state, and re-plan before retrying" — this would complete the validate → fix → retry pattern for destructive operations.
Remove the duplicate pointer to `references/official-and-community-sources.md` (it appears in both the Source hierarchy section and Bundled resources) to tighten token usage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense operational rule-setting that assumes competence ("Thin provisioning can overcommit capacity; a full storage can cause guest I/O errors and data corruption") with no concept explanations. It is not 5 because `references/official-and-community-sources.md` is pointed to twice (Source hierarchy and Bundled resources) and several multi-clause sentences (e.g., the community-automation paragraph) could be tightened; not 3 because there is no padding or material over-explanation. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tools and exact paths are given ("`pvesh`, `pvesm`, `pct`, `qm`, `pveversion`", "`/cluster/firewall/rules` AND `/nodes/<node>/firewall/rules`", "`PVEFW-HOST-IN` chain", "scripts/proxmox_readonly_audit.sh"), plus unambiguous decision rules. It is not 5 because `templates/proxmox-operation-plan.md` — the designated tool for workflow step 4 — does not exist in the bundle, so that instruction cannot be executed as written. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow (Classify → Inspect → Select boundary → Plan → Confirm → Execute minimally → Validate and document) is clearly sequenced with explicit validation (step 7 health/capacity/reachability/backup checks), confirmation gates (step 5), and rollback-boundary identification (step 1). It is not 5 because there is no explicit feedback loop stating what to do when validation fails — the rollback method is planned but the error-recovery path back to re-inspection is implicit; not 3 because validation checkpoints for destructive operations are present. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are one level deep and each is signaled with its purpose ("Read `references/operations-cookbook.md` for read-only inspection, backup/restore, updates, storage, and networking command patterns"), and the other three bundle files all exist. However, "Use `templates/proxmox-operation-plan.md`" is referenced twice — including as the required tool for state-changing work — and the templates directory does not exist in the bundle, breaking navigation at a critical workflow step. It is not 4 because a hard-broken pointer at a workflow-critical point is more than a minor organization gap; not 2 because the overall split and signaling of the real files is genuinely good. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |