Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, well-structured, and presents a clear workflow with a confirmation checkpoint and pre-commit validation. The main weakness is actionability: a few placeholders and an unresolved 'solve them' directive keep some steps from being fully executable.
Suggestions
Replace '[N] commit(s)' and '[number]' placeholders with concrete instructions (e.g., use the actual commit count) so commands are copy-paste ready.
Make the pre-commit guidance executable: give the exact install/initialization command when pre-commit is missing instead of 'solve them'.
Specify the exact `git add` form expected (e.g., `git add <file1> <file2>`) and an example commit message to remove ambiguity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean checklist with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line directs an action, matching 'Lean and efficient; every token earns its place'. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete commands like `git status`, `git diff`, `git add`, and `git log --oneline -n [number]`, but placeholders such as '[N] commit(s)' and 'pre-commit run --all-files, If rules like pre-commit are missing, solve them' leave some guidance incomplete rather than copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence with an explicit confirmation checkpoint (step 3 'Ask ... Shall I proceed?') and a validation step via pre-commit in step 4, satisfying 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps'. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple skill under 50 lines with no external references needed; it is well-organized into clear sections (Process, Important, Remember), which per the rubric lets progressive disclosure score 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |