Content
61%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.
An impressively disciplined instruction-only body: terse, assumption-aware rules with strong safety and epistemic boundaries. Its weaknesses are operational — the workflow sequence must be inferred from prose, and the entire execution model hinges on a coverage.md file that is missing from the bundle.
Suggestions
Ship coverage.md in the skill bundle (e.g. references/coverage.md) and point the links at that path, so the document set and question checklist the body depends on actually resolve.
Replace the prose-scattered process with an explicit ordered workflow (read what exists → ask only what it does not show → record confirmed facts and gaps → final coverage sweep in one message → report), so the sequence and the owner-confirmation checkpoints are unmistakable.
Add a minimal concrete example of a recorded fact and a recorded gap (e.g. the "since when it holds / owner confirmed on date" format) so the confirmation and gap conventions are executable rather than descriptive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and dense: every line states a non-obvious, project-specific rule (owner confirmation, gap handling, privacy boundaries) with zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The behavioral rules are concrete ("The owner confirms every price, fee and policy", "Change nothing the business already has"), but the operational core — the document set and question checklist — is delegated entirely to coverage.md, which does not exist in the bundle, leaving key executable details missing. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A sequence (read existing material, ask the owner, record answers/gaps, final coverage sweep, closing report) is derivable and the pre-finish sweep is an explicit checkpoint, but the steps are never ordered — they are embedded in prose rules, and mid-workflow validation checkpoints are only implicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is short and its single external reference is clearly signaled ("[coverage.md](coverage.md)" linked twice), but no bundle files exist anywhere, so the one reference it depends on is dangling and navigation fails at the first hop. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |