Content
71%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 well-organized, disclosure-friendly overview with a clean Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review structure and an appropriately referenced detail file. Its main weakness is actionability: no inline ICU MessageFormat example or named library leaves the Fix guidance executable only after opening the reference.
Suggestions
Include one inline ICU MessageFormat example in the Fix section (e.g., "{count, plural, =0 {No results} one {# result} other {# results}}") so the core fix is executable without opening the reference.
Name a concrete library or syntax in the Fix section instead of the generic 'the library' (e.g., i18next, FormatJS, or Intl.PluralRules).
Trim or compress the intro paragraph, which explains background Claude already knows and duplicates references/rule.md's 'Why It Matters' section verbatim.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with terse one-line Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections, but the intro paragraph ('Naive string concatenation produces untranslatable sentences because word order varies dramatically across languages...') explains a concept Claude already knows and duplicates the reference file's 'Why It Matters' section verbatim. This is 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than 5, but well clear of the noticeably-verbose level 3. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Quick Reference bullets give concrete rules ('Never concatenate translated strings with variables — use named placeholders', 'Use ICU MessageFormat for pluralisation') but the body contains no code, no ICU syntax example, and refers to an unnamed 'the library'. Guidance is concrete in intent but incomplete — nothing in the body is copy-paste executable — matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections give an unambiguous mode structure for a simple sub-50-line skill, with each mode's scope clearly defined. It sits at 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present' rather than 5 because the modes are parallel task descriptions rather than an ordered workflow, and no verification step is defined for reviewing the fix; no destructive/batch cap applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview and the single detail file is clearly signaled ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md'), verified to exist and exactly one level deep with content appropriately split out of the overview. This matches 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; easy navigation'. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |