Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a concise, well-sequenced 5-step workflow that respects Claude's competence and needs no external references. Its main gap is actionability and a fully closed validation loop, since it describes actions rather than giving executable commands.
Suggestions
Add concrete executable commands where natural, e.g. `git status`, `git diff`, `git add -A`, `git commit`, and `git rebase --continue` / `git merge --continue`.
Insert an explicit validation gate before completing: 'Only proceed to commit when typecheck and tests pass; re-run after fixes.'
Optionally mention how to inspect a conflict hunk (`git diff` / conflict markers) to make the resolution step more actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The five numbered steps are lean, assume Claude's knowledge of git, and contain no padding or re-explanation of known concepts, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps name concrete actions ('阅读 commit messages', 'typecheck、tests、format', 'Stage 所有内容并 commit') but provide no executable commands or copy-paste code, leaving guidance incomplete per anchor 2. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step sequence is clear and includes a validation checkpoint (run automated checks, fix issues), but the feedback loop is not closed with a 'only proceed when checks pass' gate before completing the merge, fitting anchor 2's validation-gap case. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | With no bundle files and the skill well under 50 lines, the organized numbered steps with bold lead-ins satisfy the simple-skill allowance for a top progressive_disclosure score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |