Content
75%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 compact, well-structured process skill with concrete steps, an explicit validation gate, and a clean one-level reference. Main gaps are a missing worked coverage-table example and a Packet section that over-describes the actual bundle.
Suggestions
Add a short worked example of a completed que-se-pierde/donde-queda-cubierto table to lift actionability.
Reconcile the Packet section's listed layer directories with the actual bundle (remove or mark knowledge/, prompts/, examples/, agents/ that are not present).
Make the re-audit feedback loop explicit (e.g., 'if re-audit fails, revert the degradation') to push workflow clarity higher.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, tag-annotated body that assumes competence and adds domain-specific ICM discipline rather than basics; the 'Que es' section partly restates the degradation ladder already in the description, keeping it just below the 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete procedure with specific inventory targets (features cerradas, rondas de loop, nodos paralelos) and a table-driven step backed by a real reference file; no worked completed-table example in the body, so not a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four-step sequence with an explicit table-complete gate before applying and a re-audit checkpoint afterward; validation is present (so the destructive-operation cap at 3 does not apply), but an explicit revert-on-failure loop is only implied, fitting 4. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with a one-level-deep, clearly signaled real reference (references/menor-costo-estructural.md); the Packet section lists layer dirs (knowledge/, prompts/, examples/, agents/) that do not exist in the bundle, a minor organization gap below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |