Content
85%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 well-structured, actionable design skill with a clear sequenced workflow, validation checkpoints, feedback loops, and good progressive disclosure through a labeled reference list. Its one weakness is conciseness: the same scope-handoff exclusions are repeated across several sections.
Suggestions
Consolidate the scope-guard exclusions into one canonical statement (the Scope guard paragraph) and reference it from later sections instead of restating the full 'not for running the panel / A/B / authoring / adjudicating' list in Instructions, Reference Materials, and Next Best Skill.
Trim the repeated 'operation: propose request to registry-events.py' phrasing in steps 5, the Writes contract, and Save Results to a single defined reference once and reuse a short handle thereafter.
Reduce cross-link density in the prose body — several sibling-skill links appear in both inline scope statements and the Reference Materials list; keeping them in the reference list only would tighten the running text.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Operational and largely non-generic, but the scope-guard exclusions ("does not run the panel / not for running the A/B experiment / not authoring the message") are restated across the scope guard, instructions steps 5–7, Reference Materials, and Next Best Skill, padding the body with repetition that could be tightened into a single canonical statement. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete and actionable: a numbered 8-step procedure, a worked threshold example ("≥70% ... restate the core benefit unaided after 5 seconds"), exact memory paths, and a copy-paste-ready command (`python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/connectors/experiment.py" proportion --control <pref_A> <n> --variant <pref_B> <n>`). | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–8 are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: a NEEDS_INPUT stop-and-route in step 1, a claim-scan validation in step 5, the stop/revise feedback loop in step 6 (failed test routes back to message-system-architect, not more spend), and a "Done when" checklist. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with well-organized sections (Quick Start, Skill Contract, Data Sources, Instructions, Reference Materials, Next Best Skill) and a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference list (tale-benchmark.md, skill-contract.md, CONNECTORS.md, SECURITY.md, plus named sibling skills) rather than inlining that material; no bundle files exist locally to verify against. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |