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.
Highly actionable content with executable DQL examples, sensible defaults, and exemplary one-level-deep progressive disclosure across seven reference files. The main weakness is redundancy — the request-to-capability mapping appears three times in different forms, inflating token cost without adding guidance.
Suggestions
Collapse the triple-stated use-case mapping (per-capability 'Use Cases' bullets, 'When to Use This Skill', and the 'Understanding User Intent' table) into a single intent-mapping table.
Trim the runtime feature bullet lists (e.g., Java's 'Memory: heap, pools, metaspace') since each reference file already covers its runtime; keep only the link and a one-line scope note.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the workflows (e.g., after SLA calculation: verify total > 0 before computing percentages to avoid divide-by-zero noise).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The same use-case mapping is stated three times: each capability's "Use Cases" bullets, the "When to Use This Skill" section, and the "Understanding User Intent" table, and the runtime feature bullets (e.g., "Memory: heap, pools, metaspace") preview the reference files. No conceptual padding, but the duplication could be tightened to one mapping. Not 4 because threefold repetition of the same content is more than 'minor instances of over-explanation'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Every capability has a copy-paste-ready DQL example (e.g., the p95/error-rate timeseries and the span-based SLA compliance query), plus a defaults table with concrete values and units ("1000 ms (= 1,000,000 µs)"), named tools (create-dql, static-threshold-analyzer, get-entity-name), and a troubleshooting table with specific fixes like "Use getNodeName(dt.smartscape.service)". Matches the fully-executable anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four workflows are clearly sequenced (e.g., Service Health Check: RED checks then conditional "If runtime-specific issues suspected → Load runtime-specific reference"), and the Troubleshooting table provides error-recovery guidance for concrete failure modes. Not 5 because workflow steps reference capabilities rather than embedding explicit validation checkpoints; not 3 because this is read-only analysis (no destructive/batch cap) and the troubleshooting table covers most recovery paths. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a genuine overview: quick examples inline with "→ For detailed queries: See [references/service-metrics.md]", seven real reference files (all verified present), each capability linking to its file, and a consolidated References section. Verified one level deep — no references file points to further references. Matches the clear-overview anchor exactly. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |