Content
86%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 a concise, well-sequenced 5-step workflow that preserves intent and includes a validation step, scoring highly on conciseness and progressive disclosure. The main gap is actionability: concrete git commands would make steps copy-paste executable.
Suggestions
Add concrete commands to key steps, e.g. `git status` / `git diff` for inspecting conflicts and `git rebase --continue` or `git commit` for completion.
Specify how to locate automated checks concretely (e.g. 'look for package.json scripts, Makefile targets, or CI config') rather than leaving it implicit.
Optionally name the specific validation feedback loop ('run checks -> if failures, fix -> re-run until green') to strengthen the checkpoint at step 4.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean 5-step list with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place, matching 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete direction (find primary sources, preserve both sides' intent, run typecheck/tests/format, stage and commit) but lack specific executable git commands like `git status` or `git rebase --continue`, fitting 'Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 5-step process with a validation checkpoint (step 4 runs automated checks and fixes issues) and an explicit no-abort rule, matching 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single under-50-line file with no external references needed, organized as a well-structured numbered list; the simple-skill exception applies, matching the score-5 anchor for compact well-organized skills. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |