Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The catalog is concise and uniformly structured with copy-pasteable imports and source paths, but it offers no executable usage examples and leaves several entries without descriptions. Its workflow lacks validation checkpoints for destructive operations, and 57 entries in one file would benefit from being split by concern.
Suggestions
Fill in the missing Description fields for entries like GetDeletedPageByIdUseCase, ListDeletedPagesUseCase, PageAfterRestoreEventHandler, PageAfterTrashEventHandler, PageBeforeRestoreEventHandler, PageBeforeTrashEventHandler, RestorePageUseCase, and TrashPageUseCase.
Add at least one short executable usage snippet (e.g. invoking a UseCase or registering an event handler) so the import lines become copy-paste runnable, and add a validation/check step for destructive operations in the How-to-Use workflow.
Split the monolithic list by concern (e.g. references/pages.md, references/redirects.md, references/scheduler.md) with the body acting as a concise overview linking one level deep.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean, uniform catalog of Name/Import/Source/Description records with no conceptual padding and no explanation of things Claude already knows, matching the anchor 3 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place.' | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Each entry provides copy-pasteable import statements and source paths, but there are no executable usage examples and several entries (e.g. GetDeletedPageByIdUseCase, PageAfterRestoreEventHandler) lack any Description, leaving key details missing per anchor 2. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-step 'How to Use' sequence exists, but destructive operations (DeletePage, TrashPage, DeleteRedirect) have no validation checkpoints and step 2 is only an implicit manual-read check; the rubric caps destructive-op workflows without feedback loops at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The 57 abstractions are all inlined in a single monolithic file that could be split by concern (page vs redirect vs scheduler); it points to sibling skills for patterns but keeps content inline, matching anchor 2 'content that should be separate is inline.' | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |