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.
A tight, well-structured instruction skill that assumes competence and gives a concrete procedure plus output template. The only gaps are minor: guidance steps aren't literal commands and there's no formal validation loop, though neither is strictly needed for a read-only analysis task.
Suggestions
Add one literal command example for finding callers (e.g., `rg 'import invoicing'` or `grep -rn`), nudging actionability from 4 to 5.
Add an explicit validation/quality checkpoint in the workflow (e.g., 'If the map can't name callers or the abstraction above, widen the search before going deeper') to formalize the existing 'then, and only then' gate.
The 'Pairs With' section is useful but tangential to the core procedure; consider trimming or relocating it to keep every token aligned with the main action.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean prose that assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what a module, grep, or namespace is, and every section earns its place despite the slightly tangential 'Pairs With' block. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | A concrete numbered procedure (identify unit, grep callers, find neighbors/abstractions) plus a copy-pasteable output template, but the steps are guidance rather than fully literal commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 5-step sequence with an explicit gating checkpoint ('then, and only then, go deeper'), but lacks formal validation/error-recovery feedback loops that the anchor-5 example shows. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, no external references needed, and well-organized into clearly labeled sections, which meets the rubric's exception for simple single-purpose skills. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |