Content
75%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, well-structured instruction skill with concrete commands, clear ordering, and a verification step. The main gap is the absence of a worked commit-message example and explicit recovery guidance when a group or secret is flagged.
Suggestions
Add one short before/after commit-message example showing a multi-file change split into two grouped commits, so the grouping rule is unambiguous.
Spell out the recovery path when step 2 surfaces a suspected secret (e.g. exclude the file, warn the user, then continue committing the rest).
Clarify what to do if a single file spans multiple logical groups (e.g. split via git add -p) so the 'never git add -A' rule doesn't leave Claude stuck.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and assumes Claude knows git (no PDF-style padding, no library lectures); a few lines like 'Do not lump unrelated changes together just because they're small' could be trimmed, placing it just below the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, executable commands (git status, git diff, git add <file>, git log --oneline -10) and explicit rules; an instruction-only skill so absent code is fine, but a worked commit-message example would close the gap to 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step sequence with an explicit Verify checkpoint (git status confirms clean) for a batch operation; the secret-warning recovery path and group-failure handling are only implicit, so it stays below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into Goal, Workflow, Commit Message Rules, and Hard Rules sections; under 50 lines with a single task and no external references needed, so the simple-skill exception applies. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |