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 concise, well-organized, and actionable with specific tool calls and a clear reporting structure. Its main gap is workflow clarity: the steps are sequenced but lack explicit validation checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation/checkpoint step, e.g. after get_review_context_tool() verify the returned changed_files list is non-empty and handle the empty case.
Include an error-recovery feedback loop, such as 'if query_graph_tool finds no tests for a changed function, flag it as untested and recommend coverage.'
Clarify what to do when build_or_update_graph_tool() reports no changes or a stale graph, so the workflow has a concrete fallback path.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what a graph or blast radius is, and every line (token-optimization note, five steps, brief advantages) earns its place, matching the score-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, parameterized tool calls such as build_or_update_graph_tool(), get_review_context_tool(), and query_graph_tool(pattern="tests_for", target=<function_name>) plus a structured report format — specific and actionable guidance rather than vague direction. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The five steps are clearly sequenced with an implicit readiness check in step 1, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops (e.g., what to do if the context is empty or no tests are found), fitting the score-2 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with a single task and no external bundle files, yet is well-organized into an intro note, numbered Steps, and an Advantages section; per the simple-skills note this warrants a 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |