Content
92%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, dense reference catalog with concrete actionable guidance and a clear sequenced workflow. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: a single long file where detailed strategies and the worked example could be split into reference files.
Suggestions
Split the detailed coverage strategies and the worked example into separate reference files (e.g. references/coverage-strategies.md, references/worked-example.md), keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview that links one level deep.
Move the special flag-state categories and flag-test layering tables into a reference file, surfacing only the key categories inline with pointers to the full tables.
Add a short navigation block near the top listing the reference files so the overview reads as an index rather than the full catalog inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a dense reference catalog with tables and minimal prose, assuming Claude's competence (it never explains what a feature flag is), so every section earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides a concrete 7-step process, named tools and strategies, and a fully worked billing example; though code-free, the guidance is specific and actionable, which the rubric permits for instruction-only skills. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'How to use' steps are a clearly numbered sequence with an embedded verification gate in step 2 (compute N×M×K to confirm enumeration is infeasible) and an anti-patterns table serving as a checklist. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized and the References section is clearly signaled with no nested references, but the ~190-line body is monolithic with no bundle-file split for the detailed strategies and worked example. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |