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 well-orchestrated multi-phase skill body: clear sequencing, scope selection, validation gating before expensive eval runs, and textbook progressive disclosure to existing, well-signaled reference files. The main gaps are minor duplication with references, full command syntax living only in the reference files, and no in-body error-recovery loop for failed quality checks or non-firing activation.
Suggestions
Trim the duplicated activation-eval explanation in Phase 4a to one line and cut the run-label example list from seven to three representative examples; the full detail already lives in references/phase4-run-evals.md and the label guidance.
Inline the primary command for each phase (e.g., 'tessl scenario generate <plugin-path> --label <run-label>') so the body is copy-paste executable without opening a reference for the common cases.
Add a short recovery pointer per gate, e.g., 'if the Phase 3 quality-check fails or Phase 4a shows no firing, see references/phase3-download-scenarios.md §3.x before proceeding', to give the workflow an explicit feedback loop in the body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes competence — no concept explanations, just operational guidance (scope menu, time expectations, label rules, phase map). Minor trimming opportunities exist: the Phase 4a explanation ('Activation does NOT force a skill to fire — it tests routing/description quality. Applies to all plugins...') duplicates detail that also lives in references/phase4-run-evals.md, and the seven run-label examples could be cut to three. Fits 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'; not 5 because of that duplication, not 3 because there is no genuinely unnecessary explanation. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The body provides concrete, executable guidance: exact eval flags ('--skip-forced-context-activation --skip-scoring'), a verbatim user-facing scope question, a choice-to-phases mapping table, concrete label examples, and time expectations. However, the full copy-paste commands per phase (e.g., the complete 'tessl scenario generate' invocation) live only in the reference files, so guidance is 'mostly executable... with minor gaps' rather than fully copy-paste ready in the body itself. Not 3, since nothing is pseudocode or vague. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 1–6 are clearly sequenced with a scope-mapping table, explicit 4a/4b ordering rules, gating validation in Phase 3 (verify structure, quality-check for anti-patterns, fixture detection 'before proceeding'), Phase 4a as a routing gate that 'prevent[s] wasted content-eval time', and a 'When to stop' section. It falls short of anchor 5 because explicit error-recovery feedback loops (e.g., what to do when the Phase 3 quality-check fails or when no skill fires in 4a) are not stated in the body — recovery is delegated to references and the companion skill. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clean overview where every phase links to exactly one clearly signaled reference file, and all seven referenced files (phase1–phase6 plus phase3-fixtures-and-setup.md) exist in references/. The one nested file (phase3-fixtures-and-setup.md, loaded by phase3-download-scenarios.md) is explicitly named and scoped in the body ('that file owns the signals, skip rules, sourcing procedure, and pre-run summary format'), so navigation stays clear; 'For partial runs, skip phases not in scope — don't load their reference files' adds explicit loading discipline. Matches 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references... easy navigation'. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |