Content
65%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 content is concise and well-structured for a simple skill, but its workflow is more directional than executable and lacks the validation feedback loop expected for batch test execution.
Suggestions
Add the actual detection logic and focused-rerun commands (e.g., grep for a Package.swift vs .xcodeproj, and a sample `xcodebuild test -only-testing:` / `swift test --filter` invocation) to make the workflow executable.
Insert an explicit validation checkpoint (run focused subset -> if failures, classify -> rerun only the failing test once to rule out flake -> report) to add the missing feedback loop.
Drop or rephrase the opening restatement of the description to recover a few tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence with no padding or explanation of known concepts; the only minor inefficiency is the opening line restating the description nearly verbatim. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete elements like the failure categories (compile, assertion, crash, env/setup, flake) and the arguments are present, but the workflow gives high-level direction ('Detect whether the repo uses xcodebuild test or swift test') without the actual commands or detection method needed to execute it. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four numbered steps form a clear sequence, but running a test suite is a batch operation and there is no explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop, which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the batch-operation rule. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, and its Arguments/Workflow/Guardrails sections are well-organized, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |