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.
A well-structured, highly actionable body with complete core code examples and a clear two-layer architecture walkthrough. Its weaknesses are repetition of the canDelete gotcha, abbreviated later use-case snippets, a missing testing section the description advertises, and no use of reference files to split the long body.
Suggestions
Add a testing section (or reference file) with the permission test matrix the description promises — e.g., the identity/permission combinations (full access, wildcard, entity-level full/own, own+no-item for each method) to verify against.
Move the method reference table and the use-case implementation patterns into references/ files (e.g., references/methods.md, references/use-cases.md), keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview with clearly signaled links.
State the canDelete-without-item behavior once (the Delete Use Case section or Gotchas) instead of three times, and note explicitly why the '// ... events + repository' elisions are safe to omit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient — dense tables, working code, and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — but the canDelete/own:true rule is repeated three times (method table, Delete Use Case section, Gotcha #1) and the four use-case snippets repeat the same NotAuthorizedError shape, which could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The schema, abstraction, feature, registration, and Get use case examples are complete and copy-paste ready, and the method reference table gives concrete semantics. However, the Update, Delete, and Publish snippets elide bodies with '// ... events + repository', leaving minor gaps that keep them from being fully executable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The layered sequence (schema definition → DI artifacts → feature registration → file structure → methods → use-case patterns → gotchas) is clear, and the 'Get use case is the central ownership gate' checkpoint makes enforcement inheritance explicit. But the description promises test matrices and the body contains no testing or verification guidance, leaving a validation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the 363-line body is monolithic: the method reference table and the four use-case implementation patterns would naturally live in references/ files. Section structure itself is good, but content that should be separate is inlined and there are no external references to signal. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |