Content
82%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.
An excellent, disciplined style-guide skill: every rule is paired with concrete Good/Bad examples, real tool commands are given, and the create-vs-edit decision workflow is explicit. The only slack is a modest amount of generic writing advice Claude already knows, which could be trimmed for token efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and example-driven with no tutorial padding, but it includes general writing wisdom Claude already knows ("One idea per sentence. One theme per paragraph," "Vary sentence length for rhythm"), keeping it at 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully concrete instruction-only guidance: real commands (wiki_list, wiki_search, wiki_read), exact link syntax '[display text](wiki:slug)', and paired Good/Bad examples for tone, lead sentences, headings, and edit summaries covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear decision workflow ('Before Writing': check existing coverage → expand vs. create → six-month durability test) and a coherent editing sequence (read the full page → match style → verify corrections → preserve content). Checkpoints exist but as implicit criteria rather than explicit validate-and-retry loops, placing it between anchors 4 and 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the body is well organized under clear ##/### sections with nothing that clearly demands separation. The word-list and style-rule sections are sizable enough that a reference file could be argued, matching 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps.' | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |