Content
60%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 well-structured agent prompt with a clear workflow, a mandatory deprecation gate, and a defined output format. Its weaknesses are description-level steps lacking executable commands, motivational/role padding, and hard-coded dates ("current year is 2026", "deprecated March 2025") that will age poorly.
Suggestions
Make the research steps executable: give concrete commands or search syntax for the GitHub research and source-exploration steps (e.g., `gh search code`, glob patterns for gem dirs) instead of 'Search GitHub for real-world usage examples'.
Remove the role framing and closing motivational line ('You are the bridge between...') — they add tokens without adding instruction — and move the 2026/2025 date references into a clearly labeled deprecation-example section or drop the hard-coded year in favor of 'the current date'.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint before synthesis, e.g., 'Confirm the documented API exists in the installed version (Gemfile.lock / package.json) before recommending it; if mismatched, re-check for the matching version's docs.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly instruction rather than explanation of known concepts, but it carries noticeable padding: the role-prose framing ("You are a meticulous... Your expertise lies in..."), the closing motivational line ("Remember: You are the bridge between complex documentation and practical implementation"), and time-sensitive details ("The current year is 2026", "Google Photos Library API scopes were deprecated March 2025") that are not in a deprecation/old-patterns section. This places it at anchor 3 — mostly efficient but with content that could be tightened — rather than anchor 4, and clearly above anchor 2's several unnecessary explanations. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | There is some genuinely concrete guidance — the literal search templates ("[API/service name] deprecated [current year] sunset shutdown"), the `bundle show <gem_name>` command, the Context7-first-then-web-search fallback, and the enumerated 7-part output format. But most steps stop at description level ("Search GitHub for real-world usage examples", "Extract relevant API references, guides, and examples") with no executable commands or search syntax for them, matching anchor 3's 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' rather than anchor 4's mostly-executable guidance. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-step Workflow Process (Initial Assessment → Deprecation Check → Documentation Collection → Source Exploration → Synthesis) is clearly sequenced, with a MANDATORY gate ("Report findings before proceeding — do not recommend deprecated APIs") and a fallback path if Context7 is unavailable. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no validation/feedback loop on the final output (e.g., verifying version compatibility claims against Gemfile.lock before reporting) — 'Always verify version compatibility' appears only as an exhortation in Quality Standards, not as a checkpoint in the workflow. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body has no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist), yet it is a ~100-line single-file agent prompt whose sections (Responsibilities, Workflow, Quality Standards, Output Format, Tool Selection) are well organized and appropriately placed inline — nothing clearly belongs in a separate file. It stays at anchor 4 rather than 5 mainly because the <examples> block and the output-format spec are self-contained chunks that could be split out if the skill grows, and there is no navigational structure beyond bolded headers. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |