Content
86%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 a lean, action-oriented overview with concrete parameterized API calls and a clear branching workflow; the main gaps are unfilled placeholders in the continue call and the absence of an explicit error-recovery feedback loop.
Suggestions
Fill the continue call's placeholders with a worked example (e.g., a sample frame_id, submit_token, and proposal_text) to make it copy-paste ready.
Add a short 'if the frame is malformed or submit fails' branch so the workflow has an explicit error-recovery feedback loop.
Clarify what 'reason over it' should produce so step 3 is actionable rather than purely instructional.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~15-line body is lean throughout with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the single orienting line 'Routing sugar over the two MCP verbs — no logic lives here' earns its place, meeting the lean/efficient anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete parameterized API calls are given for solve and continue plus a specific PREDICT format, but the continue call leaves frame_id/submit_token/proposal_text as '...' placeholders and step 3 includes a non-executable 'reason over it' instruction, leaving minor gaps short of copy-paste-ready 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence with explicit final-vs-brain_frame branching and guardrails ('Never leave a received frame unresolved') is present, but there is no explicit error-recovery feedback loop, so it sits at 'clear sequence with most checkpoints' rather than the feedback-loop 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, no external references needed, and well-organized with a '## When to Use' header and numbered list, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |