Content
88%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-engineered, highly actionable skill body with a clear sequenced workflow, explicit validation gates, and a completion checklist. The only slack is mild wordiness in a few policy sentences and the absence of any bundle split despite the length.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, imperative, and free of concept re-teaching — every section carries repo-specific policy Claude cannot infer. A few passages run wordier than needed (e.g., the retirement-field paragraph and the colliding-versions sentence), so it is efficient with minor trims rather than fully lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Exact file paths, registry keys (SANDBOX_CLI_TOOL_IDS, SANDBOX_CLI_TOOLS), helper names (defineBinaryRecipe, defineTarGzipRecipe), the ID format "<tool>@<upstream-version>-r<recipe-revision>", and copy-paste-ready bun/biome validation commands make the guidance fully executable for this instruction-only skill. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Read First -> steps 1-6 -> Required Validation -> Completion Checklist sequence with explicit validation commands, upgrade regression requirements, and honest disclosure when live provider testing is skipped. The checklist and validation blocks provide the checkpoints and feedback structure the anchor-5 example requires. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the single body is well organized with clear section headers plus read-first pointers to live source files that serve as one-level-deep references. It sits just above the simple-skill case (well over 50 lines of dense policy that could arguably split recipe-helper details into a reference), landing at good structure with minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |