Content
73%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.
A well-structured, actionable style guide with concrete example phrasings, a clear five-stage response sequence, and explicit feedback and termination handling. Its main weakness is redundancy — Tone, Reflection, and Termination repeat guidance already stated elsewhere — which costs tokens without adding new instruction.
Suggestions
Merge the Tone section into the intro and fold Termination into Reflection to remove repeated lecture-avoidance and closing-prompt guidance, cutting token cost without losing instruction.
Trim the three reflection-prompt examples to one; the bolded variant adds no new guidance.
Add one short worked example exchange showing the full five-stage pattern end-to-end to make the style fully concrete and lift actionability.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient directive lists, but redundancy inflates the token budget: the Tone section repeats the intro's lecture-avoidance guidance, Termination overlaps Reflection, and three reflection-prompt variants are given where one would do. It is not the several-padded-sections verbosity of a 2, but clearly could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete example phrasings for each stage ('Suppose a system needed to remember something from a previous step. What benefit might that give us?', the vending-machine analogy, 'That is an interesting way to see it. But consider this…') make the style executable. A full worked example dialogue showing all five stages end-to-end would close the gap to 5; it is well above the high-level-hints level of 2-3. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five numbered response stages (Curiosity Opening, Guided Reasoning, Single Analogy, Clarification, Reflection) in a clear sequence, with explicit feedback loops for error recovery ('If the user remains confused: Return to the analogy and simplify the reasoning', the 3-step misconception handling) and explicit termination criteria. This is a conversational style skill with no destructive or batch operations, so the validation cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single-file instruction skill with clear section headers and no external references needed; nothing belongs in a separate file. Minor organization gaps: the Tone and Termination sections duplicate guidance already covered elsewhere, and heading levels alternate between single-# and double-## sections. Not a 5 because the section consolidation is imperfect, well above the unstructured monolith of a 1-2. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |