Content
36%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 well-sectioned but hollow: generic platitudes in Instructions instead of any concrete FastAPI guidance, no sequenced workflow with validation, and a sole reference to a nonexistent playbook file. It needs real executable content — a project template, commands, and a verification step — plus the referenced file actually created.
Suggestions
Replace the generic Instructions with a sequenced workflow (scaffold project structure → configure dependency injection/middleware → add error handling → run and verify) including a concrete validation step such as starting uvicorn and hitting /docs or running pytest.
Add concrete, executable content: a minimal project directory layout and a runnable app example (e.g., 'uvicorn main:app --reload') instead of abstract bullets like 'Apply relevant best practices'.
Create 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' (or repoint to an existing references/ file) — the current reference is a dangling path, and the skill defers all detailed examples to it.
Delete the tautological 'Do not use this skill when' bullets or replace them with genuinely discriminating exclusions (e.g., 'modifying an existing non-FastAPI backend').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short with no concept over-explanation, but it contains clearly wasted tokens: the 'Do not use this skill when' bullets are tautologies ('The task is unrelated to fastapi project templates', 'You need a different domain or tool outside this scope') and the Instructions bullets are skill-generic platitudes ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs', 'Apply relevant best practices') that add nothing FastAPI-specific. This is more padding than anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation' but not the extensive padding of anchor 2. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The Instructions section provides zero concrete, executable guidance — no commands, no code, no example project structure — only high-level hints ('Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes'), fitting 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'. The single concrete directive ('open resources/implementation-playbook.md') points to a file that does not exist in the bundle, and even conceptually the body describes rather than instructs, keeping it above anchor 1 only by that one pointer and the concrete use-when scenarios (PostgreSQL, MongoDB, microservices). | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Instructions bullets can be read as a rough clarify-then-apply-then-validate sequence, but the steps are poorly defined (no scaffold/configure/test ordering for a project template skill) and validation is only mentioned abstractly ('validate outcomes', 'verification') with no concrete checkpoint, fitting 'rough sequence present but many gaps; steps poorly defined; validation absent'. Not 1 because a nominal sequence and validation mention exist; not 3 because no concrete checkpoints or explicit step ordering are present. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is good and the single reference is clearly signaled twice and only one level deep, but the referenced file 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' does not exist — no resources/, references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present in the bundle — so the detailed content the skill defers to is nowhere, breaking navigation in practice. This falls below anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps' (the reference is dangling, not merely imprecise) while retaining more structure than anchor 3's typical inlined-bulk case. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 10 / 20 Passed |