Content
72%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 exceptionally concise and well-structured for a simple decision skill, but its actionability and workflow clarity are held back by missing verification methodology and explicit feedback/rework checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add concrete checks for each rejection criterion (e.g., what specifically signals 'hidden fallback' or 'scope shrinkage') so the guidance is executable rather than enumerated.
Add an explicit rework feedback loop: when returning 'rework_required', specify how findings/required rework flow back to the worker and whether to re-verify.
Optionally include a brief output template or schema for the check plan, evidence reviewed, and findings to make the output more concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient — short input and output sections with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete enumeration (exact result classes and a listed input set) but omits key details on HOW to detect hidden fallback, degradation, or scope shrinkage, leaving the verification methodology incomplete. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence is present (use after a worker returns → review inputs → return one result class → include findings), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or a rework feedback loop, so it sits at the validation-gap anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references and is organized into well-signaled ## Inputs and ## Output sections, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |