Content
80%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.
An efficient, highly actionable body: two exact git commands, an explicit version-computation rule with a worked example, and a precise constraint against touching unrelated values. The main gap is the absence of any post-edit verification step for what is a batch change followed by commit and push.
Suggestions
Add a verification step after the edits, e.g. re-run `git --no-pager diff origin/main...HEAD -- packages/docs | rg 'AvailableFrom v="'` and confirm every PR-touched value now equals the computed version before committing.
Make step 5 concrete by specifying the commit scope or message convention (e.g. what the commit should reference) and that the push targets the PR's branch.
Optionally show the version arithmetic as an explicit example pair (`4.0.468` → `4.0.469`) — already present — and note what to do if the PR contains no `AvailableFrom` changes (no-op exit).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: a one-line trigger statement, five numbered steps, two copy-paste git commands, and a single worked example ("for example: `4.0.468`") that earns its tokens. No concepts Claude already knows are explained, matching the score-5 anchor "every token earns its place". | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The fetch/show/diff commands are executable and copy-paste ready, and the patch-increment rule is concrete. It is not 5 because steps 3 and 5 ("Update only `AvailableFrom` values...", "Commit and push the update") give direction without a concrete edit command or commit-message convention — minor gaps matching the score-4 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five steps are clearly sequenced with a correct diff base (`origin/main...HEAD`), but the workflow performs a batch edit plus commit-and-push with no verification checkpoint (e.g., re-running the diff to confirm every PR-touched `AvailableFrom` matches the computed version). The guideline "missing validation in batch/destructive operations caps workflow clarity at 3" applies; not 4 because validation is absent, not just minor. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, and no bundle files exist. The numbered-step organization is clean and self-contained, satisfying the guideline that such skills can score 5 with just well-organized sections. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |