Content
68%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 concise and actionable with concrete tool calls and a clear output template, but the workflow lacks explicit validation checkpoints between steps. Progressive disclosure is sound for a single-file skill.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation checkpoints, e.g. after updating the graph, confirm it reflects the current state before proceeding to impact analysis.
Insert a brief feedback loop for the deep-dive step (re-query callers after identifying a high-risk function) to catch missed impacts.
Consider extracting the full output template into a reference file so the main body stays a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and tool-call-driven with no padded concept explanations; only minor explanatory phrases in the Tips and per-step annotations could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Each step names a concrete executable tool call with parameters and provides a complete output template, though placeholders like <func> and <file_path> keep it from being fully copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step sequence is clear and ordered, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops between steps (e.g., confirming the graph is current before analyzing). | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single self-contained file is well-sectioned with no nested references and no bundle files, so content is appropriately placed; the inlined full output template and ~60-line length keep it just shy of the simple-skill ideal. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |