Content
88%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 well-structured, highly actionable auditor contract with explicit validation feedback loops and a clear verdict/handoff logic, appropriately splitting detail into reference files. Its main weakness is mild redundancy across the reference-listing sections rather than token inefficiency from over-explanation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is information-dense with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, but it repeats the same reference list across 'Runtime Reads', 'Runtime Contract', and 'Reference Materials', so not every token earns its place — efficient with minor trimmable redundancy rather than fully lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready commands — `python3 "$AARON_SKILLS_ROOT/scripts/rubric-score.py" score <run.json>`, the validate-audit-artifact invocation, and env resolution — plus an explicit NOT_SCORED fallback when the runtime is absent, covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequenced process (Required Setup → Evidence Procedure → scorer execution → Report → Verdict → Persistence) with explicit validation checkpoints, a dedicated Validation Checkpoints checklist, veto handling, and a validate-then-revalidate-then-claim-saved feedback loop for the destructive persistence step. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are one level deep and split across appropriate files (benchmark, runbook, scoring semantics, bundled auditor-runtime), with the bundled references confirmed present; minor organization gaps come from the same paths being listed redundantly across three sections and the mix of external vs. bundled runtime references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |