Content
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-sequenced troubleshooting workflow with clear validation checkpoints and lean step descriptions. Its main weaknesses are duplicated reference sections, comment-style rather than executable examples, and referenced bundle files that are not actually present.
Suggestions
Collapse the duplicate 'Refs' and 'References' sections into a single, clearly signaled reference block.
Provide at least one concrete, executable example (e.g., a real search query string and an actual command the user runs) instead of comment-style pseudocode.
Either ship the referenced files under references/protocols/ or inline the essential detail so the skill is self-contained.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The workflow steps are terse and assume Claude's competence, but the duplicated 'Refs' and 'References' sections and verbose Philosophy/Anti-Pattern 'Why:' lines leave padding that could be trimmed, so it is not a clean 3. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Named techniques (Wolf Fence, 5 Whys, OODA) and a concrete search-query format give actionable guidance, but the heavy detail is offloaded to references and the Usage Examples are comment-style pseudocode rather than fully executable steps. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly numbered 0→6 sequence with explicit checkpoints ("Exit when root cause confirmed and fix verified", "Only if diagnosis inconclusive") and a validation guard for empty AskUserQuestion answers matches the top anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The overview-plus-references structure is one level deep and well signaled, but the referenced bundle files (references/protocols/diagnose.md, etc.) do not exist in the bundle and the reference list is duplicated across two sections, keeping it below 3. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |