Content
77%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.
An unusually actionable, well-sequenced procedural skill: every step carries executable commands, numeric thresholds, explicit validation gates, and bounded feedback loops. Its weaknesses are stylistic verbosity in the narrative passages and — more seriously — two referenced bundle paths (`library/` and the per-scene `assets/scenes/` files with demos) that are documented in the body and Files table but absent from the actual bundle, making step 6 unexecutable as shipped.
Suggestions
Ship the missing bundle paths or remove them from the documentation: either include `library/` and the per-scene `assets/scenes/<id>.js`, `<id>.css`, and `demo/<id>.html` files, or drop the `library/` and scene-file rows from the Files table and rewrite step 6 to obtain scene files another way (progressive_disclosure).
Tighten the narrative passages — the opening manifesto ("Nothing in it is wrong and nothing in it was decided"), "One warning learned in testing", and "Why these, honestly" — into single-line rationales attached to the rules they justify, keeping the instruction and dropping the storytelling (conciseness).
Consolidate guidance that currently appears in both the run steps and the Files table (e.g., scene building in step 6 vs. the `scenes.md` and `assets/scenes/` rows) so each fact is stated once and cross-referenced (conciseness).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The 528-line body is dense with genuinely non-generic substance (study numbers, concrete house rules, command flags), but multiple narrative passages — "Nothing in it is wrong and nothing in it was decided", "One warning learned in testing", "Why these, honestly" — are rhetorical padding that could be tightened to instruction without loss. It sits between anchor 4's "minor instances" and anchor 2's "several padded sections": several sections could be trimmed, not just minor spots, yet almost every paragraph carries load-bearing guidance, so 3 fits best. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Commands are copy-paste ready with the `<skill>` convention explained up front (`draw.mjs --sector <sector> --brief ... --options 3`, `lint.mjs`, `inspect.mjs`, `scenes.mjs`, `assets.mjs --get <ref>`), and the body is saturated with executable specifics (1440/768/390 viewports, 120–240px section gaps, ~32-char headline arithmetic, eight moving elements, `--redraw section:<role>=<id>`). This matches anchor 5: fully executable commands covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A numbered 10-step run with an explicit validation gate ("Fix every `FAIL`... Re-run until there are no `FAIL`s"), a look-and-fix feedback loop bounded at three rounds, production-build inspection, and a report checklist gated on verified conditions. This matches anchor 5: clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops for error recovery, and a checklist. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Signaling is excellent — a Files table with a "Read it when" column, one-level-deep references, and inline pointers like "Read `references/app-screens.md` whole before you start" — and all 11 references/*.md, all scripts, and base assets exist. However, scored against the actual bundle: the Files table and step 6 reference `library/` ("The data the draw reads") and per-scene `assets/scenes/<id>.js|.css` plus `demo/<id>.html`, none of which exist in the bundle (`assets/scenes/` holds only `stage.css`/`stage.js`, and `draw.mjs` would fail to load `../library`), leaving two documented paths broken. That is more than anchor 4's "minor organization gaps", while the structure itself is far better than anchor 3's poorly-signaled references, so 3 with the breakage as the deciding factor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |