Content
92%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 concise, well-structured audit methodology with a clear sequenced workflow and an explicit comparability gate acting as a validation checkpoint. The main weakness is reliance on undefined external contracts and a JSON schema that are referenced but not bundled or located.
Suggestions
Add a reference to where 'the main ads contract' and 'normalized account snapshots' live, or inline a minimal schema so the audit steps are self-contained.
Include a compact example of the 'common JSON contract' output shape so the return-finding step is concrete rather than implied.
Optionally note the comparator platforms/MMPs list inline or via a one-level reference file so the source inventory step has explicit scope.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding; it assumes Claude knows what attribution/MMPs are and every line (steps, constraints, gate, example) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific procedural guidance with a worked Meta/Google example, but it references undefined external artifacts ('the main ads contract', 'normalized account snapshots', 'common JSON contract') without defining or locating them, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered 1-6 sequence with an explicit validation gate ('Reject aggregation until the sources share...') that serves as a checkpoint with feedback (reconcile first, then aggregate), plus a prohibitions checklist. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short (~30 line), single-file, well-organized skill with clear sections and no bundle files; under 50 lines with no need for external references, so well-organized sections suffice. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |