Content
53%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 well-organized rule list with a few genuinely concrete anchors (specific library names, naming examples, numeric limits), but it is weakened by duplicated content, filler sections, and abstract restatements of Clean Architecture/DDD principles Claude already knows. There is no code example or applied workflow showing the rules in practice, leaving the guidance more descriptive than executable.
Suggestions
Deduplicate content: the business-logic/UI and controller/database-query rules appear in both 'Separation of Concerns' and 'Anti-Patterns', and the 200-line file limit is stated twice — consolidate into one section.
Replace the vacuous 'When to Use' and 'Example' sections with a short good/bad code example (e.g., a before/after refactor showing early returns, domain naming, and extracted use cases) to make the rules concrete.
Turn the Library-First guidance into an explicit ordered decision workflow (search → evaluate → justify custom code) with a checkpoint for confirming no existing solution fits before writing custom code.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core rules are terse bullet points, but there is real padding: 'Mixing business logic with UI components' and 'Database queries directly in controllers' appear in both the Separation of Concerns and Anti-Patterns sections, the 200-line file limit is stated twice, the 'When to Use' section ('applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview') and the circular 'Example' section are filler, and the Clean Architecture/DDD bullets restate principles Claude already knows. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than anchor 2, since the rules themselves are lean. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | There is some genuinely concrete guidance — 'use `cockatiel` instead of writing your own retry logic', 'AVOID generic names: utils, helpers... USE OrderCalculator', and numeric limits (80/200-line rules, max 3 nesting levels) — but much of the content is abstract direction ('Keep business logic independent of frameworks', 'Define use cases clearly') with no good/bad code examples showing the rules applied. This matches 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details' rather than anchor 4's mostly-executable standard. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Library-First section encodes a rough decision flow ('ALWAYS search for existing solutions before writing custom code' → check npm → evaluate services/APIs → the listed cases where custom code IS justified), but there is no sequenced process for applying the skill overall, no validation checkpoints, and the 'When to Use' section that should disambiguate application is vacuous. This sits at anchor 3's level — sequence present but implicit and checkpoints missing — rather than anchor 4, whose clear sequence with most checkpoints is not met. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single ~85-line file with no bundle files, clear section headers (Code Style Rules, Best Practices, Anti-Patterns, Limitations), and no nested references, which is an appropriate structure for a rule-list skill. It matches 'Good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' — the gaps being redundant duplicated sections and the filler 'When to Use'/'Example' sections — rather than anchor 5's cleanly organized ideal. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |