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, actionable workflow with concrete commands, a useful output template, and clean section structure. Its main limitation is mild: a few template placeholders and tool-call phrasing keep actionability just short of fully copy-paste-ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: numbered steps with specific commands and tool calls, a compact output template, and a one-line tip, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, fitting the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete, parameterized commands and tool calls (e.g. `git diff --name-only main...<branch>`, `detect_changes_tool(base="main", detail_level="minimal")`), but placeholders like `<function>` and `<title>` plus tool-call phrasing leave minor gaps versus fully copy-paste-ready code, fitting 'mostly executable; minor gaps' rather than the 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-6 are clearly sequenced with a conditional recovery path in step 2 (status: not_ready -> build_or_update_graph_tool) and a gating condition in step 5, fitting 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'; it stops short of the 5 anchor because explicit validation/checklist checkpoints are not fully spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and needs no external references; it is organized into clear Steps/Output/Tips sections, which the rubric's simple-skill exception allows to score 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |