Content
71%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 content is a well-organized, concise boundary reference with a concrete reply-shape specification, though it is dominated by prohibitions and lacks worked examples. It succeeds as a short, single-purpose instruction skill.
Suggestions
Add one short example reply illustrating the four-part semantic-evidence shape to lift actionability.
Tighten the repeated runner-ownership framing so the boundary is stated once and referenced rather than restated.
Clarify what form 'citations to task packet, execution contract' should take (e.g., path, identifier, or quote).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence, with only minor redundancy in restating runner-ownership of lifecycle commands across the intro, boundary, and closing line. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The Reply Shape section gives a concrete structured list of what to include, but the bulk of the document is prohibitions ('Do not...') with no example replies or specifics on citation format. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | As a single-action instruction skill, the core action (reply with semantic evidence in the specified four-part shape) is unambiguous and clearly bounded, though no validation checkpoint applies. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Provider Boundary, Reply Shape) and no need for external references, the structure is clear and easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |