Content
86%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 compact, well-structured advisory workflow that assumes Claude's competence and sequences the budgeting process clearly with decision-complete output requirements. It is slightly less than fully actionable because it calls for formulas and sensitivity cases without providing templates.
Suggestions
Add a short formula reference (e.g., break-even CPA = payout / conversion rate, marginal ROAS = incremental revenue / incremental spend) so step 3 is executable rather than just prescriptive.
Provide one or two concrete sensitivity-case templates or worked example inputs to make 'show… sensitivity cases' actionable.
Insert an explicit verification checkpoint (e.g., 'confirm every platform line item has amount, timing, owner, guardrail, success measure, and rollback trigger before returning the plan').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient: every line is actionable instruction with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; each token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance—items to establish, comparison options, and required output elements (amount, timing, owner, guardrails, success measure, rollback trigger)—but step 3 instructs to 'show formulas' without supplying them, leaving a minor executable gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced six-step process with success measures and a rollback trigger serving as feedback loops; it lacks explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoints, but it is an advisory rather than destructive/batch workflow. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references; the single well-organized numbered list under one heading satisfies the simple-skill exception for progressive disclosure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |