Content
70%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.
This is a strong instruction-only skill: the audit methodology is concretely executable, correctly sequenced with error recovery and edge-case handling, and the report format is fully specified. Its weaknesses are token waste from repeatedly disclaiming absent reference files and a broken, empty Example section. Consolidating the not-bundled disclaimers into the single upfront availability note and adding one complete worked example would address the lowest-scoring dimensions.
Suggestions
Consolidate the ~15 scattered '(not bundled)' disclaimers into the single 'Supporting material availability' section at the top, and drop the Reference column from the vector table (or replace it with the inline quick check alone), recovering meaningful token budget.
Complete the Example section with one end-to-end walkthrough (a small vulnerable workflow, the captured security context, a Vector A data-flow trace, and the resulting finding) so the report format is demonstrated, not just specified.
Merge the duplicated snapshot/ref-pinning guidance from 'Snapshot and coverage limits' into Step 0's URL-parsing procedure so the same SHA-pinning rules appear once.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core guidance is dense and earns its tokens (expert material such as 'Rationalizations to Reject' and exact per-action input fields), but it is padded: the '(not bundled)' disclaimer is repeated roughly fifteen times, including an entire 'Reference' column of the vector table, and ref-pinning guidance is duplicated between Step 0 and the 'Snapshot and coverage limits' section. More than minor trimming is possible, so it sits at anchor 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready 'gh api' commands, an exact known-action reference table, per-action security field lists, concrete quick checks (e.g., '${{ github.event.* }}' in env blocks, 'danger-full-access', 'allowed_non_write_users: "*"'), and exact report output templates. Minor gaps keep it below 5: the Example section is a dangling stub ('User request:' with no walkthrough) and remediation guidance defers to the absent action-profiles.md. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0-5 are explicitly ordered, each building on the previous, with error handling and recovery ('GitHub authentication required. Run gh auth login'), edge-case checkpoints (no workflows directory, 0 findings, clean-repo output), a pre-conclusion validation gate ('Before concluding no AI integration exists, inspect reachable composite/reusable references'), cycle tracking, and a severity-judgment checklist. Read-only analysis needs no destructive-operation cap, and the sequence matches the anchor-5 pattern of clear steps, feedback for error recovery, and checklists. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (verified: no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), and the body is a well-sectioned monolith that honestly declares the absent files up front. However, it still devotes a 'Detailed References' section, nine table cells, and multiple inline pointers to files that cannot be navigated to — references that are clearly signaled as absent rather than usable — so organization falls at anchor 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |