Content
32%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 a generic persona prompt rather than actionable skill guidance: it describes attitudes and best practices around template generation but never shows a concrete template, command, or output format, and it begins with a duplicated frontmatter/description block that pads tokens. Its one strength is that it is short, cleanly sectioned, and needs no external references.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicated inner YAML frontmatter block from the body (fold its description into the real frontmatter) to eliminate pure padding.
Add one complete example scaffold (e.g., a minimal React/TypeScript component template the agent should produce) so the guidance is executable rather than descriptive.
Append a validation checkpoint to the generation workflow — e.g., verify the generated template compiles/lints and runs before presenting it.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body opens with a duplicated raw frontmatter block containing the entire description plus two verbose <example> blocks with commentary — pure padding in the body — followed by persona framing ("You are a Base Template Generator, an expert architect...") and generic best-practice assertions ("Include proper TypeScript definitions, error handling") that Claude already knows. Several padded sections match anchor 2 ("Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections"); it is not 1 because nothing extensively teaches basic concepts. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | No code, command, file path, or example template appears anywhere; guidance is abstract ("Create modular, extensible templates", "Design templates with clear extension points"). The six-step list and the category list are high-level hints without executable specifics, placing this between anchor 1 ("no concrete code or commands; only describes rather than instructs") and anchor 2 ("high-level hints but missing the specific steps"). | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered approach ("1. Analyze Requirements... 6. Provide Context") gives a rough sequence, but each step is a platitude ("Understand the specific type of template needed") and validation is entirely absent — no check that the generated template compiles, lints, or runs. This matches anchor 2 ("Rough sequence present but many gaps; steps poorly defined; validation absent"); not 3 because the steps are too vague to function as listed checkpoints. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and the ~40-line body has clear sections (responsibilities, approach, categories, quality standards), so per the simple-skill guidance well-organized sections alone can score high. The stray second frontmatter block at the top of the body is a minor organization defect (misplaced metadata that should be in the real frontmatter), matching anchor 4 ("Good structure... minor organization gaps") rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 10 / 20 Passed |