Content
93%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.
A tight, highly actionable audit skill: concrete file chains, named failure modes, and explicit verification steps without any padding. The only gap is an explicit fix-and-retry loop in the Verification section.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop to the Verification section, e.g. 'If typecheck fails: fix the schema/type mismatch and re-run until clean' to reach a full workflow-clarity score.
Spell out the recovery action when a smoke check (turn-start in Claude or Codex) fails, mirroring the 'fix and re-validate' pattern.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean throughout: no preamble explaining what IPC or Zod is, every line carries actionable signal (file paths, strict-mode behavior, the JSON.stringify(Promise) pitfall). Every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance: exact file paths to inspect, named functions (parseNormalizedEvent, respond()), a concrete command (bun run typecheck), and specific four-item failure-mode list covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sequenced inspection chains and a dedicated Verification section with concrete checks (typecheck, smoke-check both provider paths); just shy of 5 because there is no explicit validate→fix→retry loop spelling out error recovery when typecheck or a smoke check fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained file (no references/scripts/assets bundles exist) with clearly organized sections (Required Chain, Event Sync Checks, Pitfalls, Verification, Output); references to the sibling skill are clearly signaled by name. Well-organized single-file skill meets the simple-skill bar. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |