Content
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill provides a good high-level overview of repo-scan's capabilities with well-structured tables and a concrete installation process. However, it critically lacks actual usage commands — there's no example of how to invoke the tool, specify depth levels, or interpret outputs. The workflow section describes the tool's internal logic rather than providing actionable steps for Claude to follow when performing an audit.
Suggestions
Add concrete usage examples showing actual CLI commands, e.g., `python repo-scan.py --depth standard /path/to/repo` with expected output snippets
Replace the conceptual 'How It Works' section with an actionable workflow: steps Claude should follow to run a scan, verify results, and present findings to the user
Add a validation/verification step showing how to confirm the report was generated correctly and how to handle common errors (e.g., unsupported file types, permission issues)
Include a brief example of the output format (even a truncated JSON or HTML snippet) so Claude knows what to expect and how to summarize results for the user
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary sections like the 'When to Use' bullets and the 'How It Works' section which largely restates what Claude could infer from the capability table. The example section adds value but the overall content could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Installation instructions are concrete and copy-paste ready, but the actual usage of the tool is never shown — there are no command-line invocations, no example of how to run a scan with a specific depth level, and no sample output format. The skill describes what the tool does but doesn't show how to invoke it. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'How It Works' section describes conceptual steps of the tool's internal process, not actionable workflow steps for Claude to follow. There are no validation checkpoints, no error handling guidance, and no clear sequence of commands to execute when performing an audit. For a tool that produces reports on large codebases, missing verification steps is a significant gap. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is reasonably structured with clear sections and tables, but everything is in one file with no references to detailed documentation. The analysis depth levels and capabilities tables are well-organized, but the content that could benefit from separate files (e.g., detailed library detection rules, report interpretation guide) is neither included nor referenced. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |