Content
71%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.
An unusually actionable legal-compliance body: exact figures, deadlines, statutory citations, and per-right step tables that make answers concrete. Its weaknesses are redundancy — basics Claude already knows plus heavy duplication of content that already lives in the reference files — which hurts both conciseness and the progressive-disclosure split.
Suggestions
Remove the inlined per-right workflow tables and identity-verification detail from the body, keeping only a summary plus a pointer to references/consumer-rights-workflows.md, since that file already covers them.
Cut the "Key Definitions" section or reduce it to only CPRA-specific additions (SPI, sharing, contractor) — the general PI/sale/third-party definitions are concepts Claude already knows.
Collapse the GDPR-comparison section in the body to the structural-difference bullets and delegate the rest to references/ccpa-gdpr-comparison.md to avoid maintaining the same content twice.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The precise, time-sensitive material (Regs §§7060–7062 verification tiers, §7050(c) CCBA rule, 2026 enforcement and legislation updates) earns its place, but the body restates basics Claude already knows (e.g., "Personal Information (PI): Information that identifies, relates to..." and the basic rights list) and duplicates content that lives in the reference files (identity-verification tiers and right-to-know details appear both inline and in references/consumer-rights-workflows.md). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully concrete and executable for an advisory skill: exact thresholds ("$25 million", "100,000 or more", "50% or more"), exact deadlines ("45 days (+ 45-day extension)", "15 business days", "January 1, 2027"), exact verification standards ("match at least 2 data points", "3 data points PLUS a signed declaration under penalty of perjury"), numbered step tables per right, and explicit answer requirements ("State this rule explicitly in any ad-tech classification answer"). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Applicability and each consumer right have clearly sequenced numbered workflows with checkpoint-like steps ("Check whether any exception applies; document reasoning if invoking one"; "Document the determination — ... reassessed annually"), but there are no error-recovery feedback loops beyond the single §7022(f) verification-failure rule, so it falls short of the top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The two reference files are real, one level deep, and clearly signaled in a dedicated "Reference Files" section, but the body fully inlines consumer-rights workflows and a GDPR comparison section that duplicate references/consumer-rights-workflows.md and references/ccpa-gdpr-comparison.md — content that clearly belongs in the separate files is inlined. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |