Content
86%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 concise, well-structured instruction skill with concrete steps, a grounding Example, and validation checkpoints that respect its destructive nature. The main gap is the absence of an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop and a few steps that state what to do without showing how.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean across Context, Pattern, Why, and Example with no padding and no re-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its tokens. Not below 5 because nothing reads as over-explanation. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The seven numbered steps are concrete and the Example section grounds them in real targets (e.g. 'Delete legacy packages/excel-*-skill directories', 'Remove the matching release.yml populate/upload/publish steps'). Not a 5 because steps like 'Prove the old surface is no longer the supported path' leave the how-to-prove-it implicit rather than copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequence includes explicit verification checkpoints — step 6 'Preserve and re-validate the replacement distribution path' and step 7 'Search active operational files for stale references' — so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. Not a 5 because there is no full validate→fix→retry feedback loop spelling out error recovery. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references, yet cleanly organized into Context/Pattern/Why/Example sections, matching the simple-skill exception for a 5. Not below 5 because structure is clear and no nested references exist. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |