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.
The body is concise, well-structured, and provides concrete schemas with an ordered submit flow. Its main weakness is the absence of validation/error-handling checkpoints in the state-changing submit workflow, which caps workflow clarity, and a lack of full executable examples for the create/list tasks.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step in the submit flow (e.g., verify conditions match before recording the response, and define behavior when a referenced eventTypeId/teamId is missing).
Provide a concrete CLI/code example for the common tasks (e.g., the full `create-routing-form` invocation with a sample rule, and `list-routing-form-responses` output format).
Specify error/retry behavior when no rule matches and fallback is unset, or when a rule action references an unknown resource.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and dense: field/rule/action schemas are given as compact lists with no filler or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete rule/condition/action shapes and a submit-handling sequence with specific table and field names make guidance executable, but there is no full copy-paste code/CLI example for creating or fetching a form. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The submit flow is a clearly ordered 4-step sequence, but it performs a batch/state-changing operation (writing routing_form_responses, redirecting) with no validation or error-recovery checkpoint, capping clarity at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a short single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no external references needed, the content is well-organized into clear sections (Shape, conditions, actions, Public URL, tasks), qualifying for the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |