Content
87%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 concise, well-structured, and gives concrete executable title formats for every category, fully respecting Claude's intelligence. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit validation/verification step for choosing between default and special prefixes, which matters because misclassification is easy and the rules carry exceptions.
Suggestions
Add a brief verification step, e.g. before finalizing the title, confirm whether the change touches shipped behavior vs. tests-only and re-check the affected package's package.json `name` to catch misclassification.
Surface the special-category decision as an ordered check (tests-only? docs-only? Elements? convert? example? brand? it-tests? skill?) so the prefix selection is a deterministic pass rather than prose to interpret.
Add one one-line example of a multi-package change showing how to pick 'the one most relevant', since that branch is currently underspecified.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: it never explains what a PR title or a package.json is, and every line either states a rule or gives a format example; it fits anchor 5's 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete copy-paste title formats are given for every category (e.g. '`@remotion/shapes`: Add heart shape', 'Internal: Stabilize registration range test in `@remotion/transitions`'), with the exact rule to read package.json's `name` value, matching anchor 5's fully executable, example-covered common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence is present (inspect title and diff, read package.json, then choose default prefix or special category) but there are no validation checkpoints and a destructive-adjacent operation (choosing a prefix that misclassifies shipped vs internal changes) has no verify step, so the batch-classification guidance caps this at anchor 3 per the validation-cap guideline. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines of well-organized body with no external references needed and a single clear '## Special handling' section; per the simple-skills scoring note, a short single-purpose skill with well-organized sections scores 5 here. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |