Content
73%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.
A well-sequenced, validation-heavy workflow for an instruction-only skill: nine ordered steps with explicit stop conditions, a consistency gate, and a done-when checklist. The main costs are repetition of the proposal-path and handoff phrasing (token overhead) and the absence of any concrete example of the output artifacts, with every referenced file external to the skill directory.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the proposal-path boilerplate: state the "authorized `operation: propose` request to `registry-events.py`" routing once (e.g. in the Skill Contract) and refer to it as 'the authorized proposal path' in steps 8-9 and Save Results, cutting several repeated clauses.
State the brand-language-codifier handoff once (Skill Contract's 'Primary next skill' plus Next Best Skill) and drop the repeats in the intro, Scope guard, and step 9 to reduce token overhead.
Add a short inline example of the output shape — one skeleton message house (narrative / pillar + traced theme / labeled proof point / tagline) and one canon-grade binding line — so the deliverable format is executable from the body without chasing external references.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | No basic-concept padding (nothing re-explains what Claude already knows), but the body is noticeably repetitive: the phrase "via an authorized `operation: propose` request to `registry-events.py`" appears five times, the brand-language-codifier handoff is stated four times, and the message-house-builder "reused, not replaced" point is made in both the intro and the Scope guard. Fits the 3 anchor ('mostly efficient but could be tightened'); not 2 because the density is domain-specific workflow content, not unnecessary explanation. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: exact memory paths (memory/narrative/message-system-architect/, memory/events/narrative.ndjson, memory/claims/claims-ledger.md), explicit labels (Measured / User-provided / [needs source]), and precise conditions ("Keep exactly three unless the user explicitly justifies otherwise", "stop with NEEDS_INPUT"). Not 5 because the actual output artifacts — the message-house format and the canon-grade binding — are never shown or exemplified; the skill delegates their shapes entirely to external references. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 9 numbered steps are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: step 1 stops with NEEDS_INPUT and routes upstream, step 2 rejects a sibling fork and flags material shifts, step 4 returns an orphan pillar to positioning ("cut it or send the gap back"), and step 7's internal-consistency pass resolves contradictions by sharpening rather than softening. The Skill Contract's "Done when" clause acts as an end-state checklist — matching the 5 anchor's explicit validation plus error-recovery loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure: a dedicated Reference Materials section gives one-line descriptions for every link, and links are one level deep and well signaled in context. Not 5 because all ~13 referenced files live outside the skill directory (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle exists here to verify them), and substantial contract/proposal mechanics are inlined in the body that could be split out; not 3 because navigation and signaling are genuinely clear, not buried. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |