Content
70%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-structured, genuinely actionable design workflow with explicit validation gates, failure routing, and a done-when contract. Its weaknesses are systematic repetition of the scope/claims boundary text (token cost) and a reference graph that mostly points at files absent from the bundle, leaving the standalone reader with unresolved links.
Suggestions
State the design-vs-execution boundary once (e.g., in the Scope guard) and cut its recurrences in the intro, Data Sources, and step 7 — same for the claims-registry propose path, which can live solely in the Save Results section.
Include a minimal inline template or field list for the test-design spec and handoff summary so step 8 is executable without chasing skill-contract.md, which is not present in the bundle.
Fix or trim the reference graph: either bundle the frequently cited files (tale-benchmark.md, skill-contract.md, CONNECTORS.md, SECURITY.md) or consolidate their needed content locally, since most current links do not resolve from this skill's directory.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with domain-specific content but systematically repeats itself: the design-vs-execution boundary appears four times (intro 'never runs the panel, analyzes results, or adjudicates a claim', the Scope guard, the Data Sources section, and step 7), and the claims-registry propose-path plumbing recurs in the Scope guard, Writes, step 5, and Save Results. This is more than the 'minor instances' of anchor 4, though it never explains concepts Claude already knows, so it is above anchor 2. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout: sample thresholds ('≥70% of the target panel correctly restate the core benefit unaided after 5 seconds', '≥15 target-role respondents per variant'), a copy-paste-ready command ('python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/connectors/experiment.py" proportion --control <pref_A> <n> --variant <pref_B> <n>'), and exact memory destinations. It falls short of anchor 5 because the spec-assembly and handoff steps are directive rather than uniformly executable (e.g., no inline spec template, abstract 'authorized operation: propose' phrasing). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Eight numbered steps with explicit validation checkpoints: step 1 stops with NEEDS_INPUT if no candidate message exists, step 5 scans every stimulus claim, step 6 makes the failure decision automatic (failed test routes back to message-system-architect, 'not to more spend'), and the 'Done when' contract acts as a completion checklist with an immutability check ('Any changed canon, stimulus, panel, protocol, or contract starts a new test'). This matches anchor 5's explicit validation, error-recovery routing, and checklist, exceeding anchor 4's 'most checkpoints present'. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and the one bundled reference (references/stimulus-binding.md) exists, is one level deep, and is clearly signaled with a descriptive Reference Materials list. However, scored against the actual bundle, most referenced paths do not resolve: tale-benchmark.md, skill-contract.md, CONNECTORS.md, SECURITY.md, and five sibling SKILL.md links all point outside the provided files. That many dangling references is a structural gap beyond anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps', though the good signaling and lack of inlined bulk content keep it above anchor 2. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |