Content
82%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 efficient, well-structured orchestration skill: lean token usage, a clear gated sequence, and concrete input collection. The main gaps are unspecified paths for the shared references and JSON contracts, and the absence of explicit error-recovery loops around the schema-validity gate.
Suggestions
Name the shared reference files explicitly (e.g., 'ads/references/measurement.md', 'ads/references/benchmarks.md') instead of referring to them only by category, so navigation does not depend on inference.
Add a brief recovery step for the validation gate, e.g., 'If findings fail schema validation, fix and re-validate before returning them to the conductor.'
Point to where the 'common JSON contracts' are defined (a path or file name) so the output step is fully executable without guessing.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body is lean and imperative with zero concept explanations ('Collect business objective, account age, date window, timezone, currency, spend, conversion definition'), fully assuming Claude's competence. The path-resolution parenthetical in step 3 is operational instruction rather than padding, so every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The procedure gives concrete guidance — a specific input checklist, a fully-qualified reference path ('ads/references/x-audit.md'), and enumerated control categories — but the 'relevant shared measurement, benchmark, creative, policy, and scoring references' and the 'common JSON contracts' are named without paths or definitions, leaving minor execution gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step procedure is clearly sequenced and includes gating checkpoints ('Return schema-valid findings', 'Render a platform report only from the validated run bundle', 'Keep all account changes as drafts until the main mutation gate passes'). It stops short of level 5 because there are no explicit fail-and-retry feedback loops (e.g., what to do when findings fail schema validation). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections (Procedure, Boundaries, Output) are well-organized and the primary deep reference is one level deep and clearly signaled with resolution instructions. It is not level 5 because the shared references are only category-named ('measurement, benchmark, creative, policy, and scoring references') without concrete paths, making navigation to them incomplete. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |