Content
80%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.
The content is lean and largely executable with a clear sequence and good structure, but it lacks an explicit verification step before reporting results from a sensitive private-message database, which caps workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification checkpoint, e.g. 'Before reporting, confirm the room/account mapping and cite the matching rowids/date spans.'
Replace the literal 'query' placeholder in the FTS probe with a concrete example match string or note on FTS5 syntax.
Include a brief sanity check (e.g. count of matches) before presenting potentially private results.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no padding; it states the DB path, FTS table, a short workflow, and two minimal executable probes, assuming Claude's competence throughout. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable sqlite3 commands and a real DB path, but the FTS probe uses a literal 'query' placeholder and omits account/room table query specifics, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-step sequence is present, but this skill queries a private message DB and includes no validation/verification checkpoint before reporting, so per the batch/destructive-data guideline workflow clarity is capped at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files; well-organized into Source/Workflow/Probes sections, qualifying for the simple-skill exception to score 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |