Content
86%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 concise, well-structured, and actionable with concrete action signatures and a genuine validation checkpoint on the destructive accept path; only minor actionability and feedback-loop gaps prevent a top score.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding or over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line (action signatures, atomicity, fallback) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable-shaped action signatures with flags and return values plus a concrete atomicity mechanism (os.rename()), though it stops short of full copy-paste-ready command examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence with a real validation checkpoint (accept 'refuses if any gate failed unless --force', FULL_GATED runtime E2E baseline) and error containment via atomic rename, with only minor gaps in explicit error-recovery feedback loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short, well-organized body (Actions / Atomicity / Fallback) with a single thin-script bundle and no external references needed, matching the simple-skill exception for clean structure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |