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 tight, well-structured migration-review body with a real executable checker, validation gates, and clean one-level-deep bundle references. The only refinement is making the inspection/reporting steps slightly more concrete.
Suggestions
Give step 4 a concrete inspection cue, e.g. name the specific schema-assumption checks to perform on accepted files.
Add an explicit fix-and-retry loop when the scope checker rejects a path (e.g. "correct the path and re-run the checker") to lift workflow_clarity to 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean body with no concept over-explanation; every line (scope rule, numbered steps, required headings, allowed-tools caveat) earns its place and assumes Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete, copy-paste-ready command ("python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/check_scope.py $ARGUMENTS") and exact output headings, but steps 4–5 ("Inspect ... schema assumptions", "Report ... ") are instruction rather than executable code, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence with explicit validation gates (step 2 stop-if-rejected and "Decision: blocked whenever required evidence is missing") suits this destructive/batch context; no explicit fix-and-retry loop keeps it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections and real, one-level-deep references to references/review-checklist.md and scripts/check_scope.py that are clearly signaled and easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |