Content
67%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 and actionable with a clear sequenced workflow and validation checkpoints, but it is held back by repeated boilerplate and a heavy inline scope-guard paragraph that inflate the token budget. Tightening the repetition and externalizing the negation list would lift conciseness without losing clarity.
Suggestions
Define the claim-submission step once in the Skill Contract ('unverified wording is marked [needs source] and proposed via registry-events.py') and reference it from steps 3 and 6 instead of repeating the full phrase ~4 times.
Collapse the ~10-item Scope guard paragraph into a compact bulleted 'Boundaries' list, or move the sibling-skill exclusions to the existing Reference Materials / Next Best Skill sections where they already partly live.
Add an explicit validate→fix→retry loop for the narrative-quality-auditor handoff (e.g., 'if the auditor flags a canon contradiction, revise the flagged item and re-run the check') to turn the one-way handoff into a true feedback checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | It avoids over-explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the claim-submission boilerplate ('submit to memory/events/claims.ndjson via an authorized operation: propose request to registry-events.py') is repeated verbatim ~4× and the Scope guard is a ~10-item wall of negations that could be tightened; not 4 because the repetition is noticeable padding. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Numbered steps give concrete deliverable specs (the 10s/30s/2min ladder structure, what each length contains, 25/50/100-word boilerplate), but as an instruction-only skill it lacks copy-paste templates; not 5 because some steps stop at describing rather than templating. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 7-step sequence with checkpoints (stop NEEDS_INPUT if no canon, label-and-sweep, hand off to auditor) and explicit Done-when criteria; not 5 because the validate→fix→retry feedback loop for the auditor handoff is not spelled out. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections (Quick Start, Skill Contract, Instructions, Reference Materials) with clearly signaled one-level-deep cross-skill links; not 5 because no bundled reference files exist for the dense scope/handoff material that could otherwise be split out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |