Content
63%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 well-sectioned with concrete templates and a clear four-phase workflow, but it repeats its own templates, leans on pseudocode for the actual evaluation step, and inlines everything monolithically instead of splitting examples and grader references into separate files. The /eval commands it documents don't exist in the bundle.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the eval-definition/report templates — present the format once and have the Workflow and Example sections reference it rather than re-printing it.
Make the Evaluate step executable: specify how a capability eval is actually run and recorded, and add an explicit failure loop (eval fails → fix → re-run → re-report).
Move the grader-type details and the full add-authentication example into reference files (e.g. references/graders.md, references/example-auth.md) and link them one level deep from SKILL.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient templates, but the eval-definition and report formats are repeated three times (Eval Types, Workflow §Define, and the full 'Example: Adding Authentication'), and the Philosophy section restates EDD basics Claude can infer ('Define expected behavior BEFORE implementation', 'Run evals continuously'). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable snippets are present (grep/npm-test grader commands, copy-pasteable eval templates), but the central Evaluate step is pseudocode ('[Run each capability eval, record PASS/FAIL]') and the '/eval define|check|report' commands have no implementation behind them. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Define → Implement → Evaluate → Report sequence is clear and evals themselves act as checkpoints, but there is no explicit failure-handling loop (what to do when an eval fails, fix, and re-run). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is ~230 lines with no bundle files at all; the grader-type guides, the integration patterns, and the full authentication example are inlined where they belong in separate reference files, though section headers keep it navigable. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |