Content
51%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 skill body is well-structured with exemplary progressive disclosure, but it reads as a concept reference rather than a working guide: it explains attack-tree basics Claude already knows while omitting the actual construction workflow, which lives entirely in the reference file. Adding an inline step-by-step procedure and a small worked example would substantially raise actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add an ordered construction workflow to the body (e.g., 1. Define the root goal from the attacker's objective, 2. Enumerate sub-goals and refine to leaf attacks, 3. Assign cost/time/skill/detection attributes, 4. Identify the cheapest low-detection paths and map mitigations), since the body currently has no sequence at all.
Include one small worked example tree inline (a labeled diagram with attributes filled in) so the skill is actionable without requiring the reader to open references/details.md for the first concrete artifact.
Trim the Core Concepts section: replace the ASCII tree and OR/AND/leaf explanation (which Claude already knows) with just the skill's own conventions — the chosen symbols and the four-attribute scale — to improve token efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The document is compact overall, but the Core Concepts section (ASCII tree diagram, node-type table) re-explains attack tree semantics Claude already knows and could be trimmed to conventions the skill actually defines (symbol and attribute choices). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The node-type table and attribute value scales ($, $$, $$$; Hours/Days/Weeks) provide concrete conventions, but no inline worked example or construction procedure exists — all executable templates are deferred to references/details.md, leaving the body itself descriptive rather than instructive. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | No ordered construction steps are present (e.g., define root goal, enumerate vectors, assign attributes, identify cheapest path); sequence is only implied by section order, and the sole validation mention ('Validate with experts') is a best-practice bullet, not a checkpoint. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview with a well-signaled, one-level-deep reference ('Full template library lives in references/details.md. Read that file when you need concrete templates'), and the referenced file exists with no nested references; content is appropriately split. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |