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-structured, appropriately progressive body: the overview stays lean and pushes implementation detail into a real, well-signaled reference file. The main gaps are duplicated review-scope text between the Check and Code Review sections and the absence of any inline anti-pattern example or explicit verification checkpoint.
Suggestions
Merge or differentiate the Check and Code Review sections — both currently say 'Review authenticated flows/forms'; state the scope once and use the second section only for what to flag.
Inline one short bad/good code pair (e.g., a silent setTimeout redirect vs. a warned, extendable timeout) so reviewers can pattern-match without opening the reference.
Add explicit verification checkpoints to the Check section, such as 'confirm the warning dialog is keyboard operable, focus-trap-free, and announced via role=alert'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean with useful section structure, but the Code Review section ("Review authenticated forms, checkout flows, editors, and long-running tasks") substantially duplicates the Check section's scope, and "related to Prevent data loss from session timeouts" is filler. Minor trimmable redundancy matches the 4 anchor; it is not the 5 anchor's every-token-earns-its-place level. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance for an instruction-only skill: "Verify users are told the timeout duration, warned before expiry, can extend the session... and restore the user to the same step" names exact checks and fixes, with implementation examples delegated to references/rule.md. It falls short of the 5 anchor because no inline example of a flaggable anti-pattern (e.g., a silent setTimeout redirect) is shown in the body itself. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review ordering plus the Quick Reference checklist gives a clear sequence for a review skill, and no destructive/batch cap applies. It does not reach the 5 anchor because verification checkpoints are implicit — there are no explicit test steps such as confirming the warning dialog is keyboard-reachable and announced to assistive technology. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A ~45-line overview with well-organized sections and a single clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ("For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md") that exists and contains the code examples. This matches the top anchor: appropriate split, easy navigation, no nesting. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |