Content
63%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 well structured with a clear seven-step workflow, explicit evidence and gating rules, and strong boundary discipline, but it is undermined by systematic repetition of the same handoff/claims-registry instructions and by total dependence on reference files (skill-contract.md, CONNECTORS.md, SECURITY.md, connector scripts) that are not included in the bundle. Tightening the duplication and shipping or inlining the essential referenced content would raise both conciseness and actionability.
Suggestions
State the claims-handoff rule ('[needs source] → memory/events/claims.ndjson via an authorized operation: propose request') once — in step 5 — and reference it elsewhere with a short pointer; the full phrase currently appears five times.
Collapse the category-narrative-mapper handoff, currently repeated in Scope guard, Skill Contract, Reference Materials, and Next Best Skill, into the Next Best Skill section plus a single link.
Ship the referenced bundle files (skill-contract.md templates, CONNECTORS.md recipes, scripts/connectors/firecrawl.py and wayback.py) or inline the minimal versions needed to run the workflow, and include a short example of the expected baseline table.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and domain-specific (no explanations of concepts Claude already knows), but repeats the same instructions several times: 'via an authorized `operation: propose` request to `registry-events.py`' appears five times (Scope guard, Writes, step 5, Save Results), 'only narrative-registry writes canon' three times, and the category-narrative-mapper handoff is stated four times (Scope guard, Primary next skill, Reference Materials, Next Best Skill). This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; not 4 because the duplication is systematic rather than minor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable instruction guidance: exact memory paths (memory/narrative/narrative-baseline-mapper/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md), specific tools (scripts/connectors/firecrawl.py, wayback.py), defined classification labels (aligned / drifted / contradictory / silent), an evidence rule, and copy-ready Quick Start prompts. Not 5: no example of the output baseline table, and the connector scripts and contract templates the steps depend on are not present in the bundle, so the guidance cannot be executed end-to-end as shipped. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The seven numbered steps are clearly sequenced with checkpoints: establish the yardstick before reading gaps (step 3), 'a gap read without the quote is an assertion, not evidence' (step 4), ask-before-writing gates ('ask before writing', 'Do not write memory without asking'), and an explicit Done-when contract. Not 5: there is no error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., what to do when a scrape or robots pre-flight fails or a surface is unreachable) and no re-validation of the assembled baseline before handoff. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and references are clearly signaled one level deep in a dedicated Reference Materials list, but the bundle ships no reference, script, or asset files — every link (../../../references/skill-contract.md, ../category-narrative-mapper/SKILL.md, ../../../CONNECTORS.md, ../../../SECURITY.md, scripts/connectors/firecrawl.py, etc.) points outside the skill directory and none resolve within the bundle. Core operating detail (handoff format, save-results template, connector recipes, security handling) lives in those unshipped files, so navigation breaks at runtime; this fits 'references present but' effectively unusable / could be better organized rather than the good-structure anchor at 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |