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.
The body is a tight, well-structured decision workflow with strong safety boundaries and precondition gates. Its main weakness is the absence of executable commands or explicit error-recovery loops, which caps actionability and workflow_clarity just below the top.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop for verification failure (e.g., 'if remote state no longer matches the draft precondition, abort and re-snapshot before retrying') to reach top workflow_clarity.
Include one concrete example of invoking the mutation gate or adapter (a representative command/signature) to lift actionability to fully executable.
Show a brief ranked-recommendation output shape so Claude knows the expected artifact from step 4.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient throughout — 'Default to `--draft`.' and the numbered list assume Claude's competence with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific rules ('Refuse permanent deletion...', 'Offer reversible alternatives: leave objects paused, archive where supported, apply labels, export a backup') but no executable code or commands; minor execution gaps for an instruction-only skill interfacing with domain adapters. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 6-step sequence with explicit checkpoints ('verify, audit', 'only when... remote state still matches the draft precondition', 'only through the main mutation gate'), but no explicit error-recovery feedback loops beyond the destructive-action refusal conditions. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed; well-organized into a numbered process and a clearly signaled 'Destructive-action boundary' section, matching the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |