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.
The body is highly actionable with specific tool parameters, field names, and exact output templates, and includes solid validation logic for RCA confidence levels. Its main weakness is redundancy — 'Tool Usage Rules' and 'Critical Rules' restate the same imperatives — which hurts token efficiency.
Suggestions
Merge the duplicated rules between 'Tool Usage Rules' and 'Critical Rules' into a single canonical rules section to remove repeated imperatives (collect_cluster_status, windowed mode, no custom SQL).
Add one short worked example each for the Status-only and RCA output formats (a sample filled table) so the templates are unambiguously copy-paste ready.
Consolidate the workflow into one coherent numbered sequence with explicit feedback loops (e.g. weak candidate -> next_checks -> re-run) rather than splitting routing across multiple sections.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly directive and free of concept explanations Claude already knows, but the same rules are stated twice across 'Tool Usage Rules' and 'Critical Rules' (e.g. 'Call collect_cluster_status before health conclusions' vs 'ALWAYS call collect_cluster_status...', repeated windowed-mode and no-custom-SQL rules), matching the score-3 anchor of mostly efficient with some unnecessary content that could be tightened; not score 4 because the cross-section duplication is noticeable padding. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance — exact tool names, parameters like 'status_analysis_mode="windowed"', exact table column headers, emoji+text status requirements, and specific field names (candidate.evidence_for, support_score) — matching the score-4 anchor of mostly executable guidance with minor gaps; not score 5 because there are no worked examples (e.g. a filled-in summary or RCA table) covering the common cases end-to-end. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A mandatory 3-step workflow with status-vs-RCA routing plus explicit validation logic (do not state root causes without evidence, inconclusive when support_score < 0.3, weak-candidate caveats) fits the score-4 anchor of a clear sequence with most checkpoints present; not score 5 because the workflow is fragmented across 'Tool Usage Rules', 'Workflow', and 'Critical Rules' rather than one coherent sequenced flow with explicit feedback loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clearly headed sections (Tool Usage Rules, Workflow, Severity Thresholds, Output Format, Critical Rules) with no nested or buried references, and all content is appropriately inline for a single-file skill, matching the score-4 anchor of good structure with minor organization gaps; not score 5 because no bundle files exist and the detailed output-format/RCA templates (~96 lines) could optionally be split into a reference file for easier navigation. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |