Content
57%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A clear, well-structured workflow for executing plan files with status tracking. Its main weaknesses are vague task-execution guidance, a redundant example section, and a missing feedback loop for FAILED tasks.
Suggestions
Add an error-recovery feedback loop for the `[!]` FAILED status (e.g. diagnose, retry, or escalate) so the batch workflow has a real validation loop.
Make STEP 4 actionable by specifying how to determine and perform a task's required actions (e.g. read the task description, perform the stated edits/commands, then mark DONE) rather than just "execute all actions required".
Remove or compress the "Example Usage" section since it duplicates the numbered Execution Steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and free of concept re-explanation, but the "Example Usage" section largely restates the "Execution Steps" section, adding redundancy that could be trimmed. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete status markers (`[ ]`, `[~]`, `[x]`, `[!]`) and a clear update procedure are provided, but STEP 4's "Execute all actions required to complete the task" is vague about how the task itself is performed. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced with a STEP 6 re-read verification, but this batch operation defines a `[!]` FAILED status with no error-recovery feedback loop, capping clarity at 2 per the batch-operations guideline. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple under-50-line single-task skill with no need for external references, and its content is well-organized into clearly labeled sections. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |