Content
92%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 body is an information-dense, opinionated docs-writing guide with concrete anchor examples, a clear sequenced workflow, and explicit validation backstops. Progressive disclosure is exemplary, with a lean overview pointing to clearly labeled one-level-deep references.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense, opinionated guidance with no generic-concept padding and every rule earning its place, but a few justifying clauses ("expanding a spare page is cheap, cutting a bloated one is a rewrite") are rationale rather than instruction and could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance with specific anchor examples (code fence, numbered bold lead-in, `**Term**: fact` bullet, table, file tree) and named exemplar files to match; fully actionable for an instruction-only skill, which the rubric does not penalize for lacking code. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence (load no-ai-slop, read writing.md, read target page, draft, run two backstop tests, report) with explicit validation feedback loops ("Retrievability", "The glance", "A failure means a slot got written without being earned; fix it now"). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Concise overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references to separate files for detail (writing.md as "the style authority", full-process.md for the deep drafting session, exemplar paths under docs-lab), matching the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |