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 solid, actionable workflow doc with concrete CLI commands, clear branching, and good sectioning. Its main gap is the absence of an embedded validation feedback loop and a worked artifact example for the creation step.
Suggestions
Promote the 'Verify the artifact file exists after writing' guardrail into an explicit post-write validation checkpoint in the step flow, with a fix-and-retry path for failures.
Add one short worked example of creating an artifact (e.g., a minimal proposal.md filled from a template) to make the core creation step copy-paste concrete.
Trim declarative filler such as 'This shouldn't happen with a valid schema' and the repeated emphatic STOP lines to tighten token efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with code blocks and lists carrying the load; minor instances of over-explanation ('This shouldn't happen with a valid schema', repeated STOP emphasis) that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready CLI commands and explicit JSON fields to parse, but the core artifact-creation step ('fill in its sections', 'apply context and rules') stays high-level without a concrete worked example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered sequence with explicit STOP points and status-based branching; the file-existence verification is a guardrail rather than an embedded validation checkpoint with error-recovery feedback. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into labeled sections (Input, Steps, Output, Guidelines, Guardrails) with all content appropriately inline for a single workflow; no external references are needed, though the doc exceeds the 50-line simple-skill threshold. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |