Content
88%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 lean, well-structured operational skill with strong validation checkpoints and feedback loops for its destructive vault operations. The main gap is that executable commands rely on placeholders the user must substitute.
Suggestions
Provide one concrete end-to-end example with realistic sample values filled in, alongside the templated commands, to improve copy-paste readiness.
Consider splitting the transaction/provenance mechanics into a dedicated reference file to further reduce body length, since program.md already absorbs the program detail.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense operational guidance (provenance rules, untrusted-evidence handling, transaction mechanics) with no padding explaining what research or vaults are; every section earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete subcommands with flags are given (transaction inspect/apply, checkpoint), but paths, OPERATION_ID, and APPROVAL_SHA256 remain placeholders requiring substitution, so it is not fully copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced loop with explicit validation (inspect before apply, SHA-256 preconditions, approval gate), enumerated stop conditions, and feedback loops (conflict -> re-read and rebuild; interruption -> transaction recover). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-sectioned overview that offloads the detailed program to the real references/program.md (one level deep, clearly signaled), with wiki references explicitly resolved to the product root; structure is good with only minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |