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 body is maximally token-efficient and appropriately self-contained for its size, but it is too underspecified to act on: it never says how to obtain the deployment diff or what the review output should be. Workflow clarity is middling because the sequence exists yet the deliverable and checkpoints are implicit.
Suggestions
Add the concrete step for obtaining the diff, e.g. "Run `git diff <base>..HEAD` (or read the attached patch file) to get the deployment diff" so the guidance is executable.
Specify the output format for the review, e.g. "For each changed replica setting, quote the old and new value with its file and line, then flag any that alter replica counts or resources".
Add a completion checkpoint such as confirming every changed replica setting is quoted before finishing the review, which would also raise workflow clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | "Read the deployment diff. Quote changed replica settings." is two lean imperative sentences with zero padding, zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and nothing to trim. This matches 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The body names concrete artifacts (deployment diff, replica settings) but gives no executable specifics: no command to obtain the diff (e.g. `git diff main...`), no file paths, and no statement of the expected output format. This matches 'Minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'. Not 1 because it instructs with named concrete objects rather than only describing; not 3 because there is no partially executable guidance at all — nothing here can be run or followed mechanically. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough two-step sequence is present (read the diff, then quote the changed replica settings), but there are no checkpoints and the deliverable is underspecified — where the diff lives and what the final output should look like are left implicit. This matches 'Steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'. Not 4 because the gaps are not minor (the review's definition of done is unstated); not 2 because the sequence is coherent and both steps are defined at a high level. The operation is read-only, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, has no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ do not exist), references nothing external, and inlines nothing that belongs in a separate file. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, a skill this small with no need for external references scores 5: the entire appropriately-scoped content sits in SKILL.md with nothing buried. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |