Content
80%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 concise and highly actionable with executable commands and well-structured reference tables. Its main gap is the absence of a verify-after-change loop for destructive permission grants/revokes, which caps workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add a verification step after grant/revoke commands (e.g. 'Run `claims check` to confirm the claim took effect') to create a validate-feedback loop for destructive permission changes.
Drop or fold the 'Purpose' section into the existing header to avoid restating the frontmatter description and tighten token efficiency.
Make the 'Best Practices' bullets more concrete by linking each to a specific command (e.g. 'Scope claims to specific resources: prefer `--scope "/src/**"` over `*`).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean tables and direct commands assume Claude's competence; the standalone 'Purpose' section restates the frontmatter description and the Best Practices bullets are slightly generic, keeping it just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Copy-paste ready 'npx claude-flow claims check/grant/revoke/list' commands with concrete flags and example values cover all common operations, supplemented by reference tables for claim types, scopes, and security levels. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Each command is individually clear, but grant/revoke are destructive permission changes with no validation or verification step (e.g. run 'check' after 'grant' to confirm), so the destructive-operation cap of 3 applies. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple single-purpose skill with no need for external references; the body is cleanly organized into well-labeled sections (Claim Types, Commands, Scope Patterns, Security Levels, Best Practices), satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |