Content
72%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-organized simple workflow that scores well on token efficiency and structure, but loses points on actionability and workflow clarity due to a missing YAML field schema and absent validation feedback for the in-place edit.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of a field definition's YAML structure (showing name, description, category, detail_level keys) so the append step is unambiguous and copy-paste ready.
Insert a validation/verification checkpoint after appending — e.g. re-read and parse fields.yaml to confirm valid syntax and no duplicate field names before finishing.
Specify how the Step 2B web-search agent should be launched and what it returns, so that step is actionable rather than purely directional.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~26-line body is lean and efficient with no concept explanations Claude already knows; every line (Trigger, 4 numbered steps, Output) earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps are concrete and sequenced, but key details are missing — no example field-definition YAML structure and no specification of the field keys (name, description, category, detail_level), so the append step is not copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 4-step sequence with a user-confirmation checkpoint exists, but the in-place file modification lacks an explicit validation/verification feedback loop (e.g. re-parse YAML, check for duplicates), which caps workflow clarity at 2 for destructive edits. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (Trigger, Workflow, Output), satisfying the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |