Content
55%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 is token-efficient but underspecified: it offers one concrete instruction (test with pytest) amid vague direction, with no clear workflow, validation steps, or executable examples.
Suggestions
Replace vague directives with concrete steps, e.g. specify how to map plan sections to implementation files and how to run pytest.
Add a validation checkpoint such as 'After implementing, run pytest and confirm all tests pass before finishing.'
Fix the grammatical error 'must add follow the plan' and clarify what 'read research' refers to (a path or artifact).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is extremely lean (a heading and two bullets), assumes Claude's competence, and contains no padding or over-explanation of known concepts; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Beyond 'Make a test for every section in your implementation using pytest', the guidance ('make an implementation', 'follow the plan', 'read research') is high-level hints with no concrete steps or examples, fitting the 'minimal concrete guidance' anchor. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence is implied (implement then test) but steps are poorly defined, there is a grammatical error ('must add follow the plan'), and no validation checkpoints exist for verifying the implementation against the plan. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple under-50-line skill with no need for external references; the single heading and bullets are reasonably organized and no bundle files are referenced, so it mostly meets the simple-skill exception, though the structure is minimal. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |