Content
92%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 tightly written, well-structured policy/router skill: dense overview body, clearly sequenced workflow with validation and error-recovery checkpoints, and clean one-level-deep references to real bundle files. The only gap is that concrete workflow execution lives in references rather than inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and dense — e.g. 'Make GitHub the enforceable shell around the repository's existing build, verification, release, and deployment contracts' — with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete rules and commands ('Workflow permissions default to read-only or {}', 'Run repository gates plus actionlint and zizmor') and a concrete output schema, but the actual workflow-authoring execution is routed to reference files rather than shown inline, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear ordered flow (Inspect and Classify → Shared Contract → Repository Policy → Collaboration Files → Release and Deploy Routes → Verify and Finish → Output) with explicit validation ('read back every setting...'), tool gates (actionlint/zizmor), and an error-recovery feedback loop ('On partial failure, reconcile durable state before retrying'). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-signaled overview pointing one level deep to real files (e.g. [release workflows](references/release-workflows.md), [repo settings](references/repo-settings.md)), each referenced at its point of need; all referenced paths exist in ./references/ and content is appropriately split. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |