Content
100%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 tightly structured instruction skill: lean body assuming competence, a concrete 8-step procedure with explicit validation gates and 'Done when' criteria, and well-organized one-level-deep references. The only minor tightening opportunity is the duplicated scope-guard paragraph.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what a battle card or talk track is, and every section (Skill Contract, Data Sources, Instructions, Save Results) earns its place; the only minor redundancy is the 'does not write external messaging' scope guard appearing in both the intro and the Instructions block, but it does not rise to verbosity. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | An 8-step procedure with concrete per-step deliverables and formats — 'objection → response → evidence pointer', 'Measured / User-provided / Estimated' labels, explicit memory paths, and authorized 'operation: propose' requests — is highly actionable; per the rubric's instruction-only note, the absence of code is not penalized because the guidance is concrete and specific. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced 1–8 with explicit validation checkpoints: a 'Done when' gate enumerating traceability and embargo conditions, embargo discipline keyed to the launch-registry, and 'ask before writing' prompts for memory writes, matching the score-3 anchor of clear sequence with explicit validation steps. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, so the skill is self-contained; the body is well-organized into clear sections and points outward to one-level-deep references (Reference Materials list) rather than nesting, satisfying the score-3 anchor for a clean overview with well-signaled single-level references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |