Content
75%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 well-organized, lean TDD reference with concrete rules, a clearly sequenced cycle, and explicit validation checkpoints. It scores consistently at 4 across dimensions, held from 5 by light redundancy, absence of executable code examples, and shallow error-recovery detail.
Suggestions
Add a short executable test example (e.g. a failing pytest or jest snippet transitioning RED→GREEN) to lift actionability toward anchor 5.
Tighten the redundancy between the ASCII cycle diagram and the per-phase principle sections, and trim the closing "Remember" quote, to push conciseness to anchor 5.
Spell out an explicit error-recovery feedback loop (e.g. "If a test fails during REFACTOR: revert, re-run RED/GREEN, then retry") to strengthen workflow_clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, table-driven layout that assumes Claude already knows what TDD is; minor redundancy between the ASCII cycle diagram, the per-phase sections, and the closing quote keeps it just below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete rules ("Test must fail first", "One assertion per test", "All tests must stay green", "Commit after each refactor") and concrete test-name examples; no code, but the scoring notes exempt instruction-only skills, so it lands at anchor 4 rather than 5 for lack of executable examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The RED→GREEN→REFACTOR→Repeat cycle is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints ("Test must fail first", "All tests must stay green") and a repeat loop, but error-recovery guidance is light, fitting anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the skill is a single self-contained file with 10 well-organized numbered sections and no nested references, giving good structure with minor organization gaps at anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |