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 concise, well-structured review skill that delegates detail cleanly to one reference file. The main gap is actionability — inlining a small executable lookup-map example or specific flagging commands would lift it from instructive to copy-paste ready.
Suggestions
Inline a minimal locale-aware image lookup snippet (e.g., a small map with neutral fallback) so the body is executable rather than only descriptive.
Add 1-2 concrete examples of flagged patterns (a flag icon used for language, an embedded-text image) directly in the Code Review section so reviewers have copy-paste-ready checks.
Specify a concrete verification step in the review flow, such as grepping for hardcoded image paths or embedded text, to make the workflow fully checkpointed.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and tightly organized into Quick Reference, Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review, with no padding explaining what images or i18n are; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete (specific things to flag: hand gestures, flag-as-language, embedded text) but the body offers no executable code or copy-paste lookup-map example — those specifics live only in the reference file. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check→Fix→Explain→Code Review sections sequence the review task clearly; no validation checkpoint is required for a non-destructive review skill, and the simple-skill exception holds, but the flow is not a fully explicit multi-step procedure. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview body with a single, well-signaled one-level reference to references/rule.md (a real file), keeping detail out of the top-level skill while making navigation obvious. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |