Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-structured and token-efficient, but its workflow steps lack executable code and an explicit validation feedback loop, capping actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add a minimal executable snippet for the common path, e.g. a python-docx open/edit/save example, so guidance is copy-paste ready.
Make the verification step explicit with a feedback loop: reopen the .docx, extract representative text, and if it differs from expectations, retry the edit.
Specify the exact verify command/tool rather than the abstract "extracting representative text" phrasing.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, with no padding or explanation of basic concepts; every line earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It names concrete tools (python-docx/pandoc) but provides no executable code, and "Verify by reopening and extracting representative text" is vague rather than instructive. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence with a verification step exists, but the checkpoint is implicit and there is no feedback loop for what to do when verification fails. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, the well-organized sections (When to use, Compatibility, Workflow) satisfy the simple-skill allowance for full marks. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |