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 exemplary in token efficiency and organization — short, sectioned, and free of padding — and the output enum is precise. Its weakness is execution guidance: no ordered verification procedure, no explanation of how to evaluate evidence against the verification contract, and no example of the final artifact. Adding a short worked example and a step sequence would raise actionability and workflow clarity without sacrificing conciseness.
Suggestions
Add a brief numbered procedure (e.g. read the orchestrator summary → check each verification-contract item against worker/checker evidence → apply the rules → emit the result line) to convert the implicit flow into an explicit sequence (workflow_clarity).
Include one small example of the round result artifact (a few lines of the machine-readable output with a pass and a rework_node case) to make the output contract copy-paste concrete (actionability).
Clarify how "evidence for the whole verification contract" is judged — e.g. what counts as sufficient evidence per node report — since this decision rule is the heart of the skill but is currently left unstated (actionability, workflow_clarity).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~35-line body is lean with zero padding: "Use this skill after orchestrator returns a round summary and node reports" plus a six-item input list, a one-line output spec, and five terse rules. No concepts Claude already knows are explained and every token earns its place, matching the anchor-5 example of lean, competence-assuming content. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The output contract is fully concrete ("round result: pass|rework_node|partial|replan_required|global_blocker") and each rule is crisply defined, but the actual procedure is unspecified: how to check evidence against the "planner verification contract", what the machine-readable artifact looks like beyond one enum line, and no worked example. This matches anchor 3 ("some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details"), not 4, because the core verification mechanics are left implicit. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | There is an implicit shape (inputs listed, rules given, output specified) but no sequenced procedure from inputs to verdict — no ordered steps for reviewing reports, mapping evidence to the contract, and classifying the outcome; checkpoints are implicit in the rules. This matches anchor 3 ("sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit"). Not 2 because the rules partially function as decision gates; not 4 because no explicit ordering or validation loop is written out. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Per the judging guideline, a skill under 50 lines with no need for external references can score 5 with well-organized sections alone: the body has clean Inputs / Output / Rules sections, no inlined content that belongs in separate files, and no (or nested) references. It is self-contained at one level with easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |