Content
82%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 tight, well-structured instruction skill: token-efficient, concrete about what to inspect and when to pause, with a numbered evidence workflow containing real validation checkpoints and a professional handoff format. Its only weaknesses are minor — the failure-feedback loop is implicit rather than explicit, and a worked example would make the guidance fully concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence: "Resolve packages from actual repository configuration rather than assumed paths", "Rank a small set of falsifiable hypotheses", "Do not fabricate access, connector results, ticket fields". No section explains concepts Claude already knows (no primer on what Jira or CODEOWNERS is), and every line adds a rule, boundary, or checklist item — matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Quotes: "Inspect stack traces, workspace metadata, organization-prefixed dependencies such as `@work/*`, service manifests, recent commits, and `CODEOWNERS`", "Reproduce the failure at the narrowest public interface. Add one failing behavior-level test when practical", "Ask one focused question only when a missing input makes the next action unsafe". Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill, but there are minor gaps — no worked example (e.g., a sample bug contract or handoff) and steps like "Record source strength" are not spelled out — so it fits 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than fully copy-paste-ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Evidence Workflow is a clearly numbered 1–7 sequence with explicit checkpoints: "Add one failing behavior-level test when practical", "run the focused test and the repository's canonical validation", "Define rollback and operational verification before recommending rollout", and a falsification loop in step 5. It falls just short of the top anchor because the error-recovery feedback loop (test fails → fix → re-run) is implied by "smallest reversible fix, then run the focused test" rather than an explicit if-fails-then-revalidate instruction. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is self-contained with well-organized sections (Inputs, Safety Boundary, Evidence Workflow, Engineering Handoff) and a clearly signaled one-level delegation up front: "Load and follow the `diagnose` skill for the core reproduce-minimise-hypothesise-instrument-fix loop". No bundle files exist to reference, and nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined; it scores 4 rather than 5 only because the body runs past the ~50-line threshold where organization alone would earn the top mark, and the handoff checklist is the kind of content that could optionally live in a reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |