Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, actionable, and well-structured, with concrete code patterns and non-obvious rationale. Its main gap is the absence of any build/size-verification checkpoint, which weakens workflow clarity for a constraints skill centered on size limits.
Suggestions
Add a verification checkpoint: after building, run `cargo build --target wasm32-unknown-unknown` and confirm the resulting .wasm stays under the 2 MB HTML limit and the jsDelivr 50 MB cap, so the size constraints are testable rather than only stated.
Provide a short sequenced checklist for the trigger task (implement SyncExtractor -> implement DocumentExtractor::as_sync_extractor returning Some -> feature-gate with #[cfg(target_arch = "wasm32")] -> build and verify size) so the implied workflow has explicit, ordered checkpoints.
Make the extract_from_bytes example self-consistent: `mime_type` is referenced but never derived from the inputs — either show how it is obtained or note it must be supplied, so the pattern snippet is fully copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence — it never explains what WASM or Tokio is. The one explanatory comment ("the 306-language grammar pack pushes the browser .wasm past jsDelivr's 50 MB per-file cap") is non-obvious rationale Claude would not know, so every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable Rust/TOML snippets — the SyncExtractor and DocumentExtractor impls, MAX_HTML_SIZE constant, and Cargo [profile.release] config — that are specific and directly adaptable, matching the anchor for concrete code with specific examples. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Critical Rules itemize constraints (steps present) but offer no validation checkpoint, e.g. building for wasm32 and confirming the output respects the 2 MB HTML limit and 50 MB jsDelivr cap — a notable gap for a skill whose core concern is size compliance. This fits the anchor for steps listed with missing/implicit checkpoints rather than the level above, which requires explicit validation steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files are provided and none are needed; the single self-contained file is organized into clearly labeled sections (Overview, Feature Flags, Critical Constraints, Build Config, API Pattern, Critical Rules) with no nested references, matching the anchor for well-organized single-level content. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |