Content
86%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 content is a tight, highly actionable workflow with concrete tool calls and a defined output format, well-organized for a simple read-only analysis skill. Its main gap is the absence of an explicit validation/checkpoint step in the review sequence.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean, names concrete tools, and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; only the opening "Perform a thorough, risk-aware code review using the knowledge graph" restates the description and could be trimmed, fitting the efficient-with-minor-over-explanation anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Each step names a concrete, parameterized tool call (e.g., `query_graph_tool` with pattern="tests_for", `get_minimal_context_tool(task=...)`) and the output format is specified, matching the fully executable, copy-paste-ready anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–5 are clearly sequenced with a defined output format, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint or feedback loop confirming the analysis is complete; as a read-only (non-destructive) skill the destructive/batch cap does not apply, fitting the clear-sequence-with-minor-validation-gaps anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, has no external references (no references/scripts/assets bundle files), and is organized into clear sections (Steps, Output Format, Token Efficiency Rules), qualifying for the simple-skill exception at the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |