Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The router is concise and its 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with genuine confirmation and validation checkpoints. Its main weakness is that the routing protocol depends on manifest.yaml and the core/static fragment files, none of which are bundled, so the skill cannot load the fragments it instructs Claude to read.
Suggestions
Bundle the missing manifest.yaml and the static/ + core/ fragments the routing protocol references (core/stance.md, core/workflow.md, static/fragments/task/submission-package.md), or rewrite the protocol to route only over the references/ files that actually exist.
Make step 1 executable by ensuring manifest.yaml is present and its declared paths resolve to real files, since the entire load-fragments logic hinges on it.
Flatten the references/examples/ tree (e.g., examples/introduction/* at two levels) or have examples/index.md explicitly catalog every nested path so discovery stays one level deep.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~80-line router is lean: it delegates detail to fragments ('Do not try to apply the drafting logic from memory... Always load fragments from disk') and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; even the 'Why this split' rationale is brief and maintenance-oriented rather than padded. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The guidance is structurally concrete — a numbered priority order (1–6), explicit axis values, and an on-demand reference table — but its central executable instruction ('Read manifest.yaml') and the named core fragments ('core/stance.md', 'core/workflow.md', 'static/fragments/task/submission-package.md') refer to files that do not exist in the bundle, so the workflow cannot be executed as written; this is the 'incomplete; missing key details' anchor rather than fully copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 5-step routing protocol with explicit checkpoints: 'State the detected axis values in one short line to the user before drafting, so they can correct you cheaply' (confirmation loop) and 'If essential evidence or boundary is missing, write a placeholder and list it under Assumptions or missing inputs:' (validation loop), matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps' anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body describes a sophisticated two-layer architecture (manifest.yaml + static/ + core/) and signals references well via markdown links and an on-demand table, and the references/ layer that actually exists is one-level-deep and well-organized — but the primary navigation artifact manifest.yaml and the core/static fragments the protocol tells Claude to load are absent from the bundle, so the described progressive-disclosure structure does not match the actual bundle. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |