Content
86%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.
A high-quality skill body: fully executable examples across authoring, running, parsing, and CI, with well-structured one-level-deep references. The only improvements are trimming duplicated notes (the tests:/data_tests: alias and build skip-on-failure each stated twice) and adding an explicit fix-failure-then-rerun loop after the parsing/triage section.
Suggestions
State the tests:/data_tests: back-compat alias once (either the Overview or the Authoring section) and cross-reference it elsewhere instead of repeating it.
After the 'Parsing failures' jq triage examples, add a short feedback loop: locate the failing test's compiled_code in run_results.json, fix the model or test, re-run dbt test --select <test>, and only then proceed to dbt build.
Consolidate the dbt build skip-on-failure behavior into one place (the Running section) and let the CI integration section reference it rather than re-explaining it.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and code-first with almost no padding of concepts Claude already knows (the data_tests/tests rename and the singular-test semicolon trap are genuinely non-obvious dbt facts). It falls short of anchor 5 because of minor redundancy: the tests:/data_tests: alias note appears in both the Overview and the Authoring section, and the build skip-on-failure behavior is stated twice (Running and CI integration). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Every section contains copy-paste-ready material: a complete schema.yml with data_tests, a runnable singular-test SQL file, a full {% test %} macro, six ready dbt test/build command variants, and jq one-liners over target/run_results.json. This matches anchor 5 (fully executable, covering the common cases). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The lifecycle is clearly sequenced (author → run → parse failures → CI gate) with concrete commands at each step, and the run_results.json field table plus jq triage act as checkpoints. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit fix-and-re-run feedback loop after failure triage; anchor 4's 'clear sequence with minor validation gaps' fits better than either neighbor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body stays at overview level and cleanly pushes depth to two real, one-level-deep bundle files (references/macros.md and references/ci-integration.md), each clearly signaled with a description of its contents and a concluding References section. This matches anchor 5's clear overview with well-signaled references, and both referenced files exist with substantive content. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |