Content
61%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 content is lean and reasonably actionable with a clear workflow and pitfalls list, but tool-call examples use placeholders rather than executable code and lack a validate-retry loop for bulk operations. Tightening examples and adding an error-recovery checkpoint would lift the lower dimensions.
Suggestions
Add a validate→retry feedback loop for RUBE_MULTI_EXECUTE_TOOL (e.g. on failure, re-run RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS, fix arguments, retry once).
Replace placeholder arguments with at least one fully worked, copy-paste-ready example call using concrete slugs and values.
Move the illustrative per-step code blocks into a compact single end-to-end example to reduce redundancy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean, well-organized, and assumes Claude's competence with no padding or basic-concept explanations, but a few illustrative call blocks keep it just short of the fully lean anchor-5 example. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete call patterns with field names and a quick-reference table are provided, but arguments are placeholders (e.g. 'TOOL_SLUG_FROM_SEARCH', '/* schema-compliant args */') rather than copy-paste ready code, matching the pseudocode/incomplete anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Discover → Connect → Execute sequence with connection checkpoints is present, but there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop for the bulk/multi-execute operations, and the rubric caps batch-operation skills at 3 without one. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-structured file with clear sections and no nested references, but it is slightly over the under-50-line threshold and relies on an external docs link rather than bundled references, leaving minor organization gaps versus a clean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |