Content
92%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 body is a lean, fully directive router: stages are unambiguously sequenced, validation and authorization checkpoints are explicit, and a review-fix feedback loop is defined. Its only weaknesses are small unspecified artifacts (the working-plan format and evidence retention details), which keep actionability at 4.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line is directive with zero padding — e.g. 'Mentioning a skill or paraphrasing it is not equivalent to loading it' — and no concept the model doesn't already know is explained; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete conditional routing is given throughout ('Load `systematic-debugging` when a test fails', 'If it returns valid findings, load `receiving-code-review`'), and per the rubric's scoring note code absence is not penalized for instruction-only skills; minor gaps remain, such as the expected form of the 'concise working plan' or 'observable evidence'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Stages 1-6 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ('load `verification-before-completion` before claiming completion') and a feedback loop (findings -> address -> return to verification); destructive operations (push, merge, PR, worktree deletion) are explicitly gated on authorization, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external reference material, and is well-organized into two clear sections; the router design loads detail on demand via named sibling skills, which per the rubric guideline earns a 5 for short, well-structured skills. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |