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 concise, well-structured diagnostic skill that assumes competence and gives a clear sequenced workflow. Adding full example invocations and an explicit failure-retry loop would lift actionability and workflow_clarity to 5.
Suggestions
Add one or two copy-paste-ready command examples with common flags (e.g. 'swift test --filter <TestCase>' or 'swift build -c release') to make guidance fully executable.
Insert an explicit validate->fix->retry checkpoint between build/run/test and 'Summarize failures' (e.g. 'If build fails, read the error, fix the package graph, and re-run swift build before proceeding').
Show a minimal example of reading Package.swift and mapping products to a swift run command so the Inspect->Run handoff is concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, bulleted, and assumes Claude's competence; no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and every line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable commands ('swift build', 'swift run <product>', 'swift test') are given, but full copy-paste invocations with example flags (e.g. '--filter') are absent, leaving minor gaps versus the fully-executable anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step sequence (Inspect, Build, Run, Test, Summarize) with sub-steps; this is a non-destructive diagnostic skill so the destructive-cap does not apply, but there is no explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop, capping it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, no external references needed, with well-organized sections (Quick Start, Workflow, Guardrails, Output Expectations) and no bundle files to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |