Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a compact, well-organized instruction-only boundary doc that clearly separates prohibitions from the expected reply shape. Its weaknesses are minor redundancy in the runner-ownership framing and a lack of concrete reply examples that would make the guidance fully actionable.
Suggestions
Consolidate the duplicate 'runner owns command execution / capacity' statements into a single authoritative line to remove redundancy.
Add one short concrete example of a well-formed semantic-evidence reply (e.g., a sample listing of requested profiles, counts, and verification refs) to lift actionability.
Trim the opening meta framing ('retained for rolepack history only') or move it to a one-line note so the operational guidance leads the document.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and directive, but it repeats the 'runner owns command execution' idea in both the second paragraph and the closing line, and opens with meta historical framing that could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The 'Reply Shape' section lists concrete reply elements (profiles and counts, task packet and verification refs, blockers, release-readiness recommendation), but it gives no concrete examples of what such a reply looks like, leaving key details missing. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The content is clearly organized into sections and gives a single conditional procedure (when capacity info is needed, reply with semantic evidence), but there is no real multi-step workflow and no validation checkpoints for the risk-laden boundary it enforces. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and uses well-organized sections ('Provider Boundary', 'Reply Shape'), which per the rubric merits a 3 for simple self-contained skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |