Content
70%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A compact, well-organized instruction skill with a clear retrieval workflow and guardrails. Its main weaknesses are duplicated tool/purpose content and missing concrete details on citation format and search strategy.
Suggestions
Collapse the intro tool list and the 'Tools' section into a single authoritative list to remove redundancy.
Add a one-line citation format example (e.g., '[doc-title]' or '(source: <title>)') so the citation step is unambiguous.
Give brief guidance on forming effective search_knowledge_base queries (e.g., use topic nouns, try synonyms) to lift actionability.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean, but the 'Tools' and 'Skills' sections restate the tool list and purpose already given in the intro, adding redundancy that could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete numbered steps and named tools give actionable direction, but key details are missing — no citation format example and no guidance on forming effective searches. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 1-5 sequence for answering is given, with an explicit fallback ('If the documents don't contain enough information, say so honestly') as a validation/edge-case checkpoint; as a simple read-only skill this meets the top anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, yet organized into well-labeled sections (How to answer, Skills, Tools, Guardrails), satisfying the simple-skill top anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |