Content
70%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is well-structured and token-efficient with proper progressive disclosure to a real reference file. It is weakest on actionability and workflow clarity: the body lacks executable code or an explicit validation checkpoint for the contract-verification flow.
Suggestions
Add at least one minimal executable Pact consumer test snippet in the Fix section so Claude has a copy-paste-ready starting point.
Insert an explicit validation checkpoint, e.g. 'Confirm the contract verification passes in provider CI before merging the provider change.'
Reference the broker verification step as a concrete command or pipeline stage rather than only describing it in prose.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — a short rationale, a compact Quick Reference, and terse Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections — assuming Claude's knowledge of Pact and contract testing without restating fundamentals; every section earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It directs adding 'Pact consumer tests', publishing 'to a broker', and adding 'provider verification to the backend CI pipeline', but offers no executable code, commands, or concrete examples in the body — concrete guidance is deferred to the reference file rather than present inline. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four sections imply a sequence (Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review) and the Quick Reference lists a publish-then-verify flow, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint (e.g. 'verify the contract passes in CI before proceeding') for an operation where a broken contract blocks deployment. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md') which exists as a real file, keeping detail out of SKILL.md and enabling easy navigation. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |