Content
88%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.
This is a strong, highly actionable operational skill: executable SQL, explicit validation gates, and a well-sequenced workflow with a disqualifier checklist. Its only weakness is progressive disclosure — the long monolithic body could offload some material to local reference files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense but almost entirely non-obvious domain knowledge Claude lacks (replay SQL footguns, capture-ratio mechanics, AggregatingMergeTree quirks); it does not pad with concepts Claude already knows, though a few prose passages could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Multiple copy-paste-ready SQL queries with exact time filters and table names, concrete tool calls with parameters, and numeric thresholds (≥~100 recordings/day, ≥3× baseline, ≥10 sessions, ≥5 persons) cover the common cases fully. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequenced workflow (orient → profile → explore → save memory → decide → close out) with explicit validation checkpoints (the ratio_impossible flag and same-population fallback, volume gates, the Disqualifiers checklist, edit-vs-author rules) provides feedback loops for this batch/report-authoring operation. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is clear and the generic report mechanics are properly deferred to a one-level-deep, well-signaled cross-skill reference (authoring-scouts → references/report-contract.md); however no local bundle files exist and the large body keeps all SQL and reference material inline, leaving minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |