Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise, well-structured, and highly actionable with concrete tokens and explicit boundaries, scoring near the top on most dimensions. Its main weakness is the absence of explicit validation checkpoints or a feedback loop in the workflow.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step and a validate-fix-retry feedback loop (e.g. verify the manifest tuples against the legal set before returning, and re-check on failure) to raise workflow clarity to 3.
Optionally show the exact format of the single restricted 'ccb.detailer.replan_request.v1' Planner handoff so the one routing exception is copy-paste ready, strengthening actionability.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and directive — numbered steps, bullets, and literal token values with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, so every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, copy-ready specifics (exact filenames, the schema string 'ccb.detail_packet_manifest.v1', exact outcome enums, and enumerated legal tuples); as an instruction-only skill the absence of executable code is not penalized because the guidance is highly actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequenced workflow is present, but there are no explicit validation/verification checkpoints or a validate-fix-retry feedback loop for an operation that touches workflow state, which caps workflow clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the skill is under 50 lines, self-contained, and cleanly organized into Workflow and Boundaries sections, which earns the top anchor for a simple skill per the rubric's simple-skills note. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |