Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A substantive, highly actionable instruction skill with a clear SBTM workflow, worked examples, and well-structured one-level-deep references. Its main weakness is length: some definitional prose and repeated citation boilerplate could be trimmed.
Suggestions
Tighten the opening ('Human-driven testing is testing a person performs...') and other definitional sentences that restate concepts Claude already knows.
Collapse repeated inline citation boilerplate such as '(Bach 2000, p.34, same PDF)' into a single defined reference once per section rather than restating it on each bullet.
Consider moving the full ISTQB definition quotes (e.g. the §4.4.2 paragraph) into a reference and keeping only the operative rule inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Most of the body earns its tokens with specific practice knowledge (SBTM, TBS metric buckets, the Bach session-sheet format, FEW HICCUPPS), but the opening definitional prose and repeated inline full-citation strings (e.g. '(Bach 2000, p.34, same PDF)') could be tightened without losing substance. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, followable artifacts: a filled-in scripted case (TC-CHK-014), a complete worked charter and session sheet, a full bug-report example, and a debrief checklist with specific questions. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The SBTM flow is an explicit four-part sequence ('all four required'), the debrief checklist acts as the validation checkpoint, and the traps plus the abort-if-stuck rule provide feedback loops for error recovery. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The overview stays inline while full detail is pushed to two real, clearly signaled one-level-deep references (references/automation-decisions.md and references/bug-report-and-oracles.md), with a 'Further reading' section pointing to deeper sibling skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |