Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is token-efficient, actionable, and well-structured for a self-contained debugging skill, with concrete commands and a clear section layout. Its only weakness is workflow clarity: the investigation sequence lacks explicit validation or feedback checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation/feedback loop to the workflow, e.g. 'Reproduce with a focused test before proposing a fix; re-run the test after the fix to confirm', turning the sequence into a validate→fix→retest cycle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean ~25 lines with no concept explanations Claude already knows; every line (cd, sed, rg, config path, workflow steps) earns its place, assuming Claude's competence. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides concrete executable commands — `sed -n '1,220p' codex-rs/AGENTS.md` and `rg "<symbol|setting|error|feature>" codex-rs/{...}` with real paths — plus a specific config location; the rg placeholder is a normal search-term template rather than pseudocode. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step investigation is clearly sequenced (identify → read module/tests → check config → prefer repros), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or validate→fix→retry feedback loops that the score-3 anchor requires. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (Source First, Workflow, Notes), satisfying the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |