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 well-structured, token-efficient audit procedure with genuine safety checkpoints and appropriate deferral of detail to external references. The gaps are minor: unnamed shared references and JSON contracts, and no explicit error-recovery branch.
Suggestions
Name the specific shared measurement, benchmark, creative, automation, policy, and scoring reference files (or point to where they are listed) so step 3 is directly executable without discovery.
Add a brief error-recovery branch for the output step, e.g., what to do when findings fail schema validation before the conductor returns the run bundle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and directive with zero filler; every line is an instruction or constraint (e.g., "Keep every account change as a draft until the main mutation gate passes") and assumes Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete for an instruction-only skill — a named reference file with path-resolution instructions, enumerated inputs, control areas, and output categories — but the "common JSON contracts" and the shared references to read are not individually named, leaving discovery work. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 8-step numbered sequence with real checkpoints (operation-capability verification, the mutation gate, marking uncertainty and contradictions), but there is no explicit error-recovery loop for outcomes like schema-validation failure. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections and a single clearly-signaled one-level-deep reference (ads/references/microsoft-audit.md) with resolution instructions; detail is appropriately deferred. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |