Content
71%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 well-structured, concise workflow with explicit confirmation and verification gates that handle the irreversible issue-creation step safely. Its main gap is actionability: it describes fields and commands clearly but provides no executable example Issue body or template to copy.
Suggestions
Add a short filled-in example Issue body (title + key fields) to lift actionability toward copy-paste ready.
Show the concrete gh issue create invocation with example flags so the publish step is executable rather than named.
Optionally split the field-drafting checklist into a references file if the skill grows, preserving the lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence, giving concrete drafting fields without explaining what GitHub Issues are; only minor phrases (e.g. restating template selection rationale) could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete in intent (lists exact fields, template types, and the gh issue create command) but lacks executable code or example Issue bodies, so it instructs clearly without being copy-paste ready. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear three-phase sequence (确定内容 → 起草正文 → 确认后再发布) with an explicit confirmation gate before gh issue create and a post-creation verification step, including feedback-style checkpoints for a destructive/irreversible action. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clearly headed sections of appropriate length with a single signaled external reference (../comet-github/references/maintainer-contract.md) one level deep; no bundle files exist to refine further, keeping it just short of the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |