Content
40%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 token-lean but lacks executable guidance: no request payloads or code, and the link/exchange workflow is not sequenced with validation checkpoints. The placeholder Sharp Edges table and vague When-to-Use add noise without value.
Suggestions
Add concrete, copy-paste-ready HTTP request examples (with required payloads and headers) for link token creation and the public_token exchange.
Sequence the link-token → exchange → API-call workflow as numbered steps with validation checkpoints (e.g., verify the access_token returns accounts before proceeding).
Replace the placeholder Sharp Edges table (every row 'Issue'/'See docs') with real edge cases and solutions, or remove it; rewrite 'When to Use' with concrete triggers.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The Patterns section is lean and assumes Claude's knowledge (no 'what is Plaid' padding), but the 8-row Sharp Edges table of literal 'Issue'/'See docs' placeholders and the filler 'When to Use' line are unnecessary content that should be tightened. Not 4 because the placeholder table is more than a minor instance; not 2 because the core content is genuinely efficient rather than noticeably verbose. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | It names endpoints ('/transactions/sync', '/transactions/get') and error/webhook codes (ITEM_LOGIN_REQUIRED, PENDING_DISCONNECT) but provides no concrete request examples, payloads, or code — only high-level hints. Not 3 because there is not even pseudocode, just directives; not 1 because it does identify specific endpoints and codes rather than being entirely abstract. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The link-token-to-access-token exchange is a multi-step flow but is stated in a single sentence with no sequenced steps and no validation checkpoints; token exchange and item-error handling are operations that warrant validation. Not 3 because steps are not actually listed (only a rough create-then-exchange notion), and validation is entirely absent; the destructive/batch cap of 3 would apply but does not force a 3. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines with no external references (no references/scripts/assets bundles) and is organized into clear sections (Patterns, Anti-Patterns, Sharp Edges, When to Use), satisfying the simple-skill exception. Not 5 because the placeholder Sharp Edges table and filler When-to-Use are minor organization gaps; not 3 because structure is genuinely good and content is appropriately placed. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 11 / 20 Passed |