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 an efficient, well-structured reference that assumes Claude's competence and stays within token budget. Its main weakness is actionability: it names commands and shapes but never shows a complete worked example, and the submit workflow lacks validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add one complete, copy-paste-ready example of 'create-routing-form' including a full rule payload (conditions + action) so the primary creation task is fully executable.
Add a validation/verification step to the submit workflow (e.g. confirm the response was recorded with a matchedRuleId, or how to handle a missing fallback) to introduce a feedback loop.
Optionally show a 'list-routing-form-responses' example with expected output so users can verify submissions end-to-end.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and dense with only load-bearing detail (field types, op lists, action shapes, the submit sequence); it never explains concepts Claude already knows and every line earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete data structures and named CLI commands ('create-routing-form', 'list-routing-form-responses --formId <id>'), but the main creation task is described in prose rather than a complete, copy-paste-ready command with a full rule payload. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The submit flow is a clear numbered sequence with explicit first-match-wins and fallback semantics, but there are no validation checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops, which the top anchor expects. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, organized into clearly labeled sections (Shape, Rule conditions, Rule actions, Public URL, Common tasks), which satisfies the simple-skill exception for progressive disclosure. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |