Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and well-organized for a simple skill, but it lacks actionable detail on tool usage and gives no workflow or validation guidance for handling billing requests. Adding tool signatures and a basic handling sequence would materially improve it.
Suggestions
Add concrete signatures and expected inputs/outputs for each tool (e.g., 'get_invoice(customer_id) -> list of invoices') so guidance is executable rather than just naming the tools.
Provide a short handling sequence or decision flow (e.g., look up invoice -> verify charge -> process refund or escalate) so Claude knows how to proceed for common billing requests.
Include a verification/checkpoint step for money-moving actions (refunds, payments) such as confirming the invoice or amount before issuing, since these are destructive/irreversible operations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no concept explanations Claude already knows; every line earns its place, consistent with the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Tools are named ('get_invoice', 'process_refund') but lack parameters, expected inputs/outputs, or executable usage detail, and Skills are bare labels — concrete but incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No sequencing or decision guidance for handling a billing request (e.g., when to issue a refund vs. escalate) and no validation/verification steps; the process is only implied. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed and clearly organized sections (Skills, Tools), which the rubric allows to score 3 for simple skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |