Content
86%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 routing skill that is concise, correctly delegates detail to one-level-deep references, and gives concrete file-level guidance. Minor gaps in body-level executable actionability and explicit validation loops prevent a perfect score.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean routing table plus terse numbered invariants and a reference appendix; it assumes Claude's competence and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, with every line earning its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It points to concrete files and code paths (state_machine.py, scheduling.py, apply_outcome, AlertWizard) with specific rules to follow, but the body itself is routing/architecture guidance rather than copy-paste executable code, so it sits at 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than fully runnable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Route first' table gives a clear request-to-path-to-file sequence and the invariants act as checkpoints, but there is no explicit validate/feedback loop, which is acceptable for a routing skill yet keeps it just below the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview with a routing table and a reference appendix pointing one level deep to four real files in references/ (architecture.md, adopting-platform-alerting.md, extending-platform-alerting.md, frontend-alerting.md), all clearly signaled and easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |