Content
90%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.
A tight, highly actionable skill body that uses tables and a workflow graph instead of prose. The main gap is an explicit validation/retry loop around the destructive add/delete operations.
Suggestions
Add an explicit "validate after add" checkpoint (e.g. run `hypothesis get` or `--json` verification) with a fix-and-retry note to reach workflow clarity 5.
Optionally move the full command-flag reference into a REFERENCES file and keep only the headline commands inline.
Surface the scan-modules validation step as a required (not optional) checkpoint when module names are uncertain.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: command tables, a compact dot workflow, and a JSON example with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Exact CLI invocations with all flags, a copy-paste group JSON format, and a common-module-combinations table give fully executable, copy-paste-ready guidance for the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear dot-graph sequence plus a Common Mistakes table provides most checkpoints, but the destructive add/delete path lacks an explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized single-file sections with no nested references; the command/module reference is reasonably inline and could optionally be split, leaving minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |