Content
78%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 highly actionable, domain-dense skill body with executable commands, an explicit review checklist, and a fix-location table. Its main structural weakness is that SKILL.md doubles as a reference manual: the layer-architecture and directory-layout material belongs in a separate reference file, and the workflow lacks an explicit capture-verification checkpoint.
Suggestions
Move the "How Spacebot Composes Prompts" layer-by-layer section and the directory-layout tree into a references/ file (e.g. references/prompt-architecture.md), keeping SKILL.md to the procedure plus a short layer summary with clear pointers — this would lift both progressive_disclosure and conciseness.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after Step 2 (e.g. "Confirm /tmp/prompt_inspect.md is non-empty and total_chars is plausible before proceeding") to close the workflow's implicit-verification gap.
Collapse the 18-item rendering-order list or merge it into the layer descriptions to remove the duplicated enumeration and trim token spend.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Nearly every token covers proprietary Spacebot specifics Claude cannot know (layer architecture, paths, API endpoints, template names) and it assumes Claude's competence throughout. Minor over-length remains: the 18-item rendering-order list substantially restates the per-layer sections, and the directory tree includes entries not needed for the review task — so anchor 4 rather than the lean-every-token-earns-its-place of 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance: copy-paste-ready curl/jq commands ("curl -s http://localhost:19898/api/channels/inspect?channel_id=... | jq -r '.system_prompt'"), exact file paths and template names to read, a concrete review checklist, and a problem-origin-to-fix-location table. Not a 4: the commands and checklists cover the common cases end to end with no gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step procedure (list channels → pull prompt → read sources → review against checklist → structured report) with fallbacks for failure modes (uninspectable channel → read templates directly; hosted vs local path variants). Falls short of 5 because validation of the fetch itself is implicit — there is no explicit checkpoint confirming the prompt was captured (e.g., check the output file is non-empty or total_chars) before proceeding to analysis. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned with clear headers and no nested references, but roughly half of it — the six-layer composition architecture (~100 lines) and the full directory-layout tree — is reference material inlined in SKILL.md that would serve better in a references/ file the procedure points to. That matches anchor 3 ("content that should be separate is inline") rather than 4, since the split is substantial, not a minor organization gap; there are no bundle files to score against. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |