Content
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, non-redundant-in-purpose instruction skill with a clear sequence and decision rule, weakened by a florid intro, abstract repair steps lacking a worked example, and references to bundle files that are not present.
Suggestions
Trim the metaphorical Intent prose and consolidate the repeated anti-evasion disclaimers into one statement so every token earns its place.
Add one complete before/after worked example (original blocked prompt → repaired final prompt) to make the Repair Method concrete and copy-paste ready.
Either create the referenced `references/filter-vocab` and `references/multilingual-community-examples` files or remove the `[ref:…]` load instructions so navigation points to real resources.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and free of explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the metaphor-laden Intent opening ("court of appeal", "the advocate") and the anti-evasion disclaimer repeated across three sections could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The Safer Rewrite Patterns table and Output Contract give concrete, specific guidance, but the Repair Method steps stay abstract ("Identify…", "Replace risky terms") and no full before/after worked example shows the end-to-end transformation. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step Repair Method is paired with the Boundary Rule decision checkpoint (refuse if unsafe, repair if safe, hedge when uncertain), which suffices for this non-destructive, single-purpose task. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized, but the body references `[ref:filter-vocab]` and `[ref:multilingual-community-examples]` while no references/ directory exists, so the signaled references are broken and would mislead rather than navigate. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |