Content
86%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 a tightly written, well-structured reference that gives concrete per-mode facts and a clear actionable directive. The only soft spot is workflow clarity, where the method for 'determine which modes support it' is left implicit.
Suggestions
Make the determination step explicit, e.g. 'For each action, check it against the four capabilities above and disable it in any mode that lacks the required server/filesystem backing'.
Add a one-line worked example showing one action mapped across all four modes to model the decision process.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and free of padding, assuming Claude knows what Remotion/Studio is, and every line states a concrete capability or restriction, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete specifics are present (e.g. `npx remotion studio`, `previewServerConnected` is `false`, `remotion.dev/new`, 'Hide or disable actions that require a server') with a clear closing directive, but it is reference knowledge rather than copy-paste executable steps, fitting anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | As a simple single-action skill the directive is clear and no destructive/batch validation cap applies, but 'determine which modes support it' relies on inference from the table, so it fits anchor 4 rather than a fully unambiguous 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed, the body is well-organized as intro, numbered mode list, and closing directive, qualifying for the simple-skill exception at anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |