Content
78%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 concise, well-structured instruction-only skill with concrete per-subject guidance and no unnecessary concept explanations; its main weakness is minor redundancy between Skills and Guardrails and an unspecified room-selection mechanism.
Suggestions
Dedupe the 'Skills' and 'Guardrails' sections so encouragement and reasoning guidance appear once rather than restated across both.
Specify how the active room/subject is determined (e.g. stated by the user, inferred from channel context) to remove workflow ambiguity.
Tighten 'General: Answer anything' into a more actionable directive consistent with the other subjects.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, but the 'Skills' and 'Guardrails' sections overlap (e.g. encouraging follow-ups vs encouraging students to think through problems; showing reasoning appears in both), which could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Each subject gets concrete, specific guidance ('Show step-by-step solutions', 'Provide working examples. Explain why, not just how') plus a hard 400-word constraint; mostly actionable with minor gaps like the vague 'General: Answer anything'. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The single response action is clearly framed (adapt to room subject, keep under 400 words, show reasoning), but how the active room/subject is determined is unspecified and there is no guidance on multi-student interaction. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clear sections (subject adaptation, Skills, Guardrails), satisfying the simple-skill exception for progressive disclosure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |