Content
92%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, actionable, well-sequenced instruction skill with strong validation feedback loops for its risky operations. The only gap is that the review-evidence closure could ship a literal template string for copy-paste use.
Suggestions
Provide a literal handoff/output template (e.g., a fenced block) so the Summary, Changed files, Gate commands, and P1/P2 finding-to-evidence mapping can be filled in copy-paste rather than reconstructed from bullet labels.
In Review Feedback Closure, give one concrete example of a 'Targeted verification command' paired with 'Pass/fail evidence' so the three-part requirement is unambiguous.
Specify what 'Run targeted tests' means in the Async And Stateful Changes section (e.g., name a test path or pattern) to lift actionability from good to fully executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean imperative bullets throughout, assuming Claude's competence — no padding, no explanation of what a PR or migration is, every token earning its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete commands (`just preflight`, `just gate-pr`) and specific actions dominate, but the review-evidence section lists required fields rather than a literal copy-paste template and 'Run targeted tests' is slightly underspecified. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered sequence with explicit gate validation checkpoints and feedback loops ('if a command fails twice, switch to root-cause debugging'; 'if a gate flags migration edits, stop'), satisfying the destructive/batch validation requirement. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, no external references needed, and well-organized into clearly headed sections — meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |