Content
71%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 body delivers a clear, actionable four-step procedure for using Context7, with exact tool names, parameters, and smart guidance on splitting multi-concept queries. Its weaknesses are redundancy — trigger guidance and the one-topic-per-query rule each appear twice — and the absence of any error-recovery handling for failed or ambiguous library resolution.
Suggestions
Delete or merge the 'Guidelines' section: 'Be specific' and 'One topic per query' duplicate Step 3's inline explanation of query scoping, cutting ~6 lines with no information loss.
Trim the 'When to Use This Skill' section, which repeats the frontmatter description's trigger list verbatim in spirit.
Add a brief failure-path note in Step 2 (e.g., what to do when no match or several ambiguous matches are returned — fall back to the official/primary package or ask the user).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient — no background-concept padding — but there is real duplication: the 'When to Use This Skill' section restates the frontmatter triggers, and the Guidelines items 'Be specific' and 'One topic per query' re-explain what Step 3 already says ("combined queries dilute ranking and return shallow results"). It is not a 2 because the core procedural content (Steps 1-4) is tight and every token there earns its place; it is not a 4-5 because the redundant sections could be cut outright. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance: exact tool names (`resolve-library-id`, `query-docs`), their parameters (`libraryName`, `query`, `libraryId`), a real example ID (`/vercel/next.js`), and explicit selection criteria (benchmark scores, version-specific IDs). Minor gaps keep it from a 5: no full call syntax, and no handling for edge cases like zero/ambiguous resolution results or a failed docs query. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence (resolve → select best match → fetch per concept → incorporate with citations) with decision criteria embedded at the selection step. It is not a 5 because there are no explicit validation/checkpoint steps for failure modes (no matching library ID, empty or low-relevance doc results); it is not a 3 because the sequence itself is unambiguous and each step's output feeds the next. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple, single-purpose skill (~50 lines) with no bundle files and no content that belongs in a separate file: everything — trigger guidance, the four-step procedure, selection criteria — is appropriately inline under clear section headers, matching the simple-skill exception (well-organized sections, no external references needed, easy navigation). | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |