Content
67%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 well-organized, genuinely actionable instruction-only skill with a clear sequence, honest boundaries ("What this does NOT do"), and concrete paths and naming conventions. Its weaknesses are repetition of the stakes rule across three sections (token cost without new information) and reliance on an external exemplar file plus no explicit publish-time verification step.
Suggestions
State the "every claim carries its stakes" rule once (in its dedicated section) and have the intro and "What to do" step 1 refer back to it in a few words instead of restating the failure modes — this trims roughly a quarter of the body's tokens without losing any instruction.
Add a compact skeleton or short excerpt of the required report structure (the sections and a sample stakes clause) inline, so the output format is executable from this file alone instead of depending on opening the v1.0.0 exemplar report.
Add an explicit final verification step before publishing, such as: "Before writing the file, confirm every number and status string in the report appears verbatim in a cited results file or the module source; if a number cannot be traced, either find its source or cut the claim."
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content assumes Claude's competence (no basic-concept explanations, precise paths and file names throughout), but the central "every claim carries its stakes" rule is stated three times — in the intro ("what breaks (wasted spend, false alarms, undetected overruns…) if a number or gap is wrong"), again across the six-bullet rule section, and restated in "What to do" step 1 ("each claim immediately followed by its stakes clause per the rule above"). This repetition puts it at the 3 anchor ("could be tightened") rather than 4 ("minor instances of over-explanation"). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance: exact source files to read, globs ("glob `../../eval/tuning/results/` and `../../eval/ablation/results/`"), the output naming convention `eval/tuning/results/<date>-token-ceiling-formula-v<version>-release.md`, `git log -p` for backfills, and a `CHANGELOG.md` entry under `## Unreleased`. Not 5: the report's actual output shape is delegated to an external exemplar ("see the shipped v1.0.0 report… for the target shape") rather than shown, skeletonized, or excerpted inline, so a contributor cannot execute fully without opening another file. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequenced workflow: four numbered "Before starting" steps, six numbered "What to do" steps, a separate backfill branch, and explicit exclusions. Implicit checkpoints exist (diff the prior report to scope changes, "Pull exact numbers; never round"), but there is no explicit final verification step (e.g., confirming every number appears verbatim in a cited source before publishing). Fits the 4 anchor (clear sequence, most checkpoints, minor validation gaps) rather than 5. The destructive/batch cap does not apply — this is a report-synthesis skill with no batch or destructive operations. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and all links point to in-repo files (the module, sibling skills, prior results files) — one level deep, clearly signaled, and consolidated in a "Related" section, with well-organized headers throughout. Not 5: the simple-skill exception (under 50 lines, no external references needed) does not apply at ~165 lines, and the six-bullet stakes-rule elaboration in the middle section is inline content that could live in a separate reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |