Content
80%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 a concise, well-structured, actionable spec for a single-purpose agent step with a sensible degraded/total-failure path; its main weakness is the lack of an explicit per-gate validation/recovery loop within the main workflow.
Suggestions
Add an explicit per-gate feedback step (e.g. 'If a gate fails, record which gate and the failure reason in the returned JSON before proceeding to the next gate') to close the validation loop.
Show the expected shape of the G3/G4 return records (fields like passed, reason, degraded) so the contract is unambiguous to the parent step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient, with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every line (steps, degraded flag, fallback JSON) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance: numbered steps, named function 'simulate_meta_resolution', named inputs, and a literal fallback JSON payload; minor gaps because the function signature and per-fixture invocation details are not shown. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 1-4 sequence is present and G3/G4 act as checkpoints, but per-gate failure handling is only implicit (the explicit fallback covers total agent failure, not how to recover/report when a single gate fails), leaving validation feedback loops underspecified. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, no external references needed, and well-organized into an invocation-steps section plus a Fallback section, satisfying the simple-skill exception for progressive disclosure. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |