Content
93%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 is concise, fully actionable, and well-structured for a single-purpose CLI skill, with only a minor workflow-clarity gap around verifying mutating operations after they run.
Suggestions
After the close and prioritize commands, note a verification step such as running 'detail bugs show <BUG_ID>' to confirm the new state or override was recorded.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence; every line enumerates flags or gives one earned aside (e.g. 'Worth passing: it is what a later detail bugs show reports as the override reason') with no padding about what bugs or CLIs are. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Each subcommand is given with its full executable flag set and concrete examples like '--status resolved,dismissed' and '--priority p1,p2', making the guidance copy-paste ready. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Per-subcommand flows are clearly laid out with prerequisite, auth-error recovery, and interactive-prompt guidance, but the mutating close/prioritize commands lack an explicit post-action verification step, leaving a minor checkpoint gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A focused single-purpose reference under ~60 lines with no bundle files and clearly organized sections meets the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |