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.
A lean, highly actionable skill body: concrete tool calls with parameter semantics, a confidence-aware presentation policy, explicit pre-deletion safeguards, and a risk-ordered deletion sequence. The only meaningful gap is the absence of a post-deletion verification step to close the feedback loop on a destructive operation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | About 40 lean lines with zero padding — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, and every line adds Repowise-specific knowledge ('Repowise detects dead code through graph analysis — no LLM needed'). Every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool calls with specific parameters and example values (`get_dead_code()` with `safe_only=true`, `min_confidence=0.7`, `get_risk(targets=["path/to/file"])`) make the guidance mostly executable; the minor gap is that no assembled example call shows parameters combined in actual invocation form. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence (get findings → present by confidence → confirm → get_risk double-check → ordered deletion) with explicit validation checkpoints for a destructive operation (user confirmation, dependent check, recent-git-activity false-positive flag); just short of a 5 because there is no post-deletion verification feedback loop (e.g. re-run get_dead_code to confirm the finding is gone). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no external material needed, and the rubric's simple-skill guideline allows a 5 for well-organized sections — the four headed sections are cleanly organized with nothing inlined that belongs in a separate file. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |