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.
A well-organized, token-efficient contract specification that is directly actionable for generating and reviewing test skeletons. The annotation template and naming conventions are concrete and unambiguous. The only gaps are the absence of a worked example and a verification step in the route-parity workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean specification — a lane table, a copy-paste annotation template, naming globs, and one dense route-parity paragraph — with every token earning its place. It assumes Claude's competence (no explanation of what integration testing is) and the comment-syntax note is adaptation guidance, not over-explanation, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a copy-paste-ready annotation block, concrete file-naming globs, and specific comparison aspects for route parity. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no worked example of a completed skeleton and the route-parity guidance, while concrete in what to compare, lacks a filled-in demonstration of the common case. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The route-parity review has a clear sequence — compare validation/classification/bounds/order, determine whether a difference is a proof obligation, then reuse existing proof or add the smallest detecting test — with an explicit decision checkpoint. It misses anchor 5 because there is no verification step confirming the added test actually detects the failure. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no external references needed, and content is well-organized into clearly headed sections (lanes, skeleton spec, naming, route parity) with nothing that belongs in a separate file. Per the simple-skill guideline, this scores 5 with well-organized sections alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |