Content
85%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 a tight, well-structured boundary contract: concrete prohibitions, a clear provider/runner division of authority, and an explicit reply shape. Its only weaknesses are minor redundancy in restating runner ownership and the absence of a concrete example reply that would make the reply shape fully copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no padding or explanations of known concepts, but the runner-ownership point is stated twice ("Dynamic-agent lifecycle changes are runner-owned" and "The runner owns command execution") and the do-not-use status repeats the frontmatter. Minor trimming possible, matching anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout: enumerated prohibitions ("Do not edit `.ccb` runtime files, provider state, panes, leases, sockets, mailbox records, or topology files") and an explicit reply-shape checklist. It stops short of anchor 5 because the reply shape is specified as abstract items with no example reply showing the expected format. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a simple single-purpose skill under 50 lines whose one action — refuse direct lifecycle actions and reply with the four enumerated semantic-evidence items when lifecycle information is requested — is unambiguous. Per the simple-skill scoring note, workflow clarity can score 5; no validation steps are needed since the skill performs no destructive or batch operations. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references; the two well-organized sections ('Provider Boundary', 'Reply Shape') provide clear navigation. Per the guideline for simple skills under 50 lines with no external references needed, this scores 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |