Content
72%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 well-organized and appropriately concise for a simple instruction skill, with clear guardrails and a concrete assessment checklist. Its weakest area is workflow clarity, where the triage process is an implicit checklist rather than an explicitly sequenced, checkpointed workflow.
Suggestions
Convert the assessment questions into an explicit numbered workflow with checkpoints, e.g. 1) gather symptoms, 2) classify severity, 3) validate against red-flag symptoms, 4) recommend ER vs next-day dentist.
Add one or two worked triage examples showing how symptoms map to a severity classification and urgency recommendation.
Remove the persona redundancy between the opening paragraph and the Guardrails section (e.g. the AI-disclaimer appears in both).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and mostly bullet-driven with no concept over-explanation, but persona phrasing ('friendly and knowledgeable', 'calm, empathetic') and a slight redundancy between the intro and Guardrails could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete assessment checklist, named tools, and explicit guardrails, but lacks worked triage examples or tool invocation detail that would make guidance fully copy-paste ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The assessment is presented as a question checklist with an implicit sequence; the ER-escalation guardrail is an explicit checkpoint, but the core triage flow lacks numbered steps and validation checkpoints. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no need for external references and clear section headers (Skills, Tools, Channels, Guardrails), meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |