Content
87%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is lean and highly actionable, naming specific tools with real parameters and a concrete token budget, organized into clear sections appropriate for a simple skill. Its only gap is the absence of an explicit validation/confirmation checkpoint in the debug workflow.
Suggestions
Add a verification step to the workflow, e.g. before proposing a fix, confirm the root cause by tracing the affected flow end-to-end with get_flow.
Note how to handle the case where get_minimal_context or detect_changes_tool returns nothing relevant, so the agent has a clear fallback.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean ~24 lines with no concept explanations Claude already knows: a numbered tool list, brief tips, and tight token-efficiency rules, matching the score-3 anchor of every token earning its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It names concrete tools with real parameters (e.g. "query_graph_tool with callers_of and callees_of", "detail_level=\"minimal\"\"") and a measurable target (\"≤5 tool calls and ≤800 total output tokens\"), giving executable guidance rather than pseudocode. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–5 form a clear investigative sequence, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint confirming the suspected root cause before acting, so it lands at the score-2 anchor of "steps listed but checkpoints missing or implicit". | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references; it is organized into clear sections (Steps, Tips, Token Efficiency Rules), which the scoring notes allow to score 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |