Content
75%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, actionable, and well-structured with concrete examples and a validation step appropriate for a single-purpose formatting skill. Tightening the redundancy between 'Good vs Bad' and 'Avoid' and showing the nested-backtick anti-pattern concretely would lift it further.
Suggestions
Merge or trim the overlapping 'Good vs Bad' and 'Avoid' sections (nested backticks and missing language tags appear in both) to reduce redundancy.
Show the nested-backtick anti-pattern concretely instead of only describing it, to strengthen actionability.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Largely lean with concrete code and brief 'Why' notes, but the 'Good vs Bad' and 'Avoid' sections repeat earlier guidance (e.g., nested backticks) that could be consolidated. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete runnable code, a specific validation command, and the '# skip-extract' directive, with minor gaps such as the abstract 'code here' in a bad example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Single-purpose skill with a clear validation checkpoint ('pytest tests/test_doc_examples.py -v'), though content is organized as reference rules rather than an explicit sequenced workflow. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear section headers and one clearly-signaled one-level-deep reference, with minor redundancy between the 'Good vs Bad' and 'Avoid' sections. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |