Content
60%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 a well-structured, clearly sequenced fallback workflow with a useful failure-mapping table, but its 'code examples' are illustrative pseudocode rather than executable commands and some sections are padded.
Suggestions
Replace pseudocode blocks with concrete, copy-paste-ready invocations (real shell_agent command syntax and actual function calls or templates) instead of 'create_pharmacy_checklist(...)' placeholders.
Tighten the Overview and Best Practices by removing explanatory padding about why government sites fail; assume Claude's competence.
Add an explicit validate/retry checkpoint in Step 1 (e.g. 'After N retries return unknown error, document the failure and proceed to Step 2') to make the feedback loop explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient procedural prose, but the Overview and Best Practices contain explanatory padding, and several fenced 'code' blocks are prose placeholders rather than real code, which could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a clear step sequence and example blocks, but the examples are pseudocode (e.g. 'shell_agent task: "Research [topic]..."', 'create_pharmacy_checklist(...)') rather than executable commands, with placeholder tokens like [topic]. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 4-step procedure with expected outcomes and a failure-to-fallback mapping table; checkpoints are mostly present though some (e.g. when to stop retrying) are implicit rather than explicit validate-fix-retry loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized single-file skill with clear section headers and no nested references; minor gap is that ~140 lines of domain-knowledge lists and examples are inlined rather than split into reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |