Content
73%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.
A well-structured, highly actionable investigation protocol with excellent sequencing and validation. The main weakness is repetition of evidence templates and restated prohibitions that inflate token cost.
Suggestions
Define the CLAIM/EVIDENCE/VERIFIED/DEPENDS-ON entry format once and reference it from Steps 2-4 instead of repeating the full template three times.
Consolidate the 'Prohibited Behaviors' list so it does not restate rules already enforced inline in Steps 2 and 4 (e.g., reproduction-skipping), keeping only net-new prohibitions.
Consider extracting the Step 1.5 safety-check template and Step 0 capability-matrix template into a references/ file to reduce SKILL.md length and improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient instruction-focused prose with no concept padding, but the CLAIM/EVIDENCE/VERIFIED/DEPENDS-ON template repeats across Steps 2-4 and prohibited behaviors partly restate in-step rules. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete commands (command -v ...), exact AskUserQuestion formats, and copy-paste-ready templates dominate; minor gaps because core investigation steps are procedural templates rather than executable code. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Tightly sequenced Steps 0-5 with explicit gates and pervasive validation checkpoints (disambiguation, success criteria, safety classification, VERIFIED flags, dependency tracking) plus feedback loops for recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single self-contained file with clear section headers and XML-tagged blocks giving good internal structure, but at ~278 lines with reusable templates some content could be externalized into reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |