Content
67%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.
The body is well-structured and actionable with concrete tool inputs and setup commands, but it lacks explicit sequenced workflow steps and validation checkpoints for what is a destructive, real-system-control skill, which caps workflow clarity. Conciseness and progressive disclosure are solid but not maximal due to the inlined full client example.
Suggestions
Add an explicit numbered workflow (e.g., 1. Screenshot to assess state, 2. Act, 3. Screenshot to verify result) with a validation/screenshot-after-action checkpoint to lift workflow_clarity above the destructive-skill cap of 3.
Trim the full Python 'Usage Pattern' client block to the essential tool definitions, or move it to a references file, to improve conciseness and progressive disclosure.
Replace [x, y] placeholders in the tool snippets with concrete coordinate examples so the code is fully copy-paste executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete tool/JSON snippets and a quick-reference table, but the 'Usage Pattern' full Python client block re-explains setup Claude likely already knows from the computer-use API, making it slightly more than lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, mostly executable JSON tool inputs and a full Python client example, plus setup commands; the tool-input snippets are copy-paste ready, though coordinate placeholders like [x, y] keep it just short of fully executable for all cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The implied sequence (screenshot first, then act) is present but there are no explicit numbered steps or validation checkpoints for risky real-system operations, and the rubric caps destructive/system-control skills without validation at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections (Tools Available, Usage Pattern, Setup, Safety, Quick Reference) with no bundle files to reference; minor gaps are the inlined full API example that could live in a reference file, keeping it just above the score-3 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |