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 a strong, opinionated, actionable writing guide with concrete good/bad examples and a clear review workflow. Its main weakness is redundancy across the banned-language, non-negotiables, and checklist sections, which slightly hurts conciseness.
Suggestions
Consolidate overlapping guidance between 'Banned Language', 'Non-Negotiables', and the review checklists to reduce redundancy and token cost.
Add an explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop in the editing workflow (e.g., flag a banned phrase -> rewrite -> re-check) to lift workflow clarity.
Optionally extract the post-type table and/or review checklists into a reference file referenced one level deep to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body avoids explaining basics Claude already knows, but themes recur across 'Banned Language', 'Non-Negotiables', and the review checklists, creating redundancy that could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete good/bad pairs for openings, titles, headings, and numeric claims (e.g., 'p99 error processing time from 340ms to 45ms') with specific, executable standards; minor gaps as there is no single fill-in template. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequenced review flow (Technical Review, Editorial Review, Final Check) with checklists is present, though explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loops are absent; this is not a destructive/batch skill so the cap-3 rule does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-organized file with clear section headers and no nested references; appropriate for a cohesive style guide, though its length and some redundancy prevent a top score. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |