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.
A tight, well-structured skill: executable code for the common approval path, SDK-specific wire details Claude would not know, and explicit anti-patterns plus a verify checklist. The server-side interrupt path and error-recovery guidance are the remaining gaps that keep actionability and workflow clarity below top marks.
Suggestions
Add a compact executable code snippet for the server-side interrupt bridge (detect FunctionCallContent, yield InterruptRequestContent, rewrite InterruptResponseContent back into FunctionCallContent + FunctionResultContent) instead of describing it in prose.
Include the declaration of turn1 (or a shared helper) in the interrupt example so the snippet is self-contained and copy-paste ready.
Extend the Verify section with a recovery step for the common failure modes — e.g. no ToolApprovalRequestContent found in the first turn, or a resume that re-finishes with outcome=interrupt because the request/response pair was not appended with matching ids.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence: no space is spent on what agents or approval patterns are, and every prose line carries SDK-specific knowledge ("AGUIChatClient encodes the response as RunAgentInput.Resume[] on the wire", the re-pairing of request/response). Every token earns its place, matching the 5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The approval path is copy-paste executable for both server and client, but the interrupt snippet depends on turn1 from an earlier example, AskHuman is a placeholder, and the server-side interrupt bridge (detect FunctionCallContent, emit InterruptRequestContent(call.CallId), rewrite back to FunctionCallContent + FunctionResultContent) is described in prose rather than code. Mostly executable with minor gaps — the 4 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Both flows are clearly sequenced (server wrap → client detect → resume with request+response) and the Verify section provides explicit checkpoints (interrupt outcome, approved vs. rejected effects, answer reflected in final output). Not 5: there is no error-recovery feedback loop for when the request/pairing is missing or the resume fails, so minor validation gaps remain. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and none are needed: the ~100-line body is compact, well-sectioned with headers, and inlines nothing that belongs in a separate file. Well-organized sections with no external references required. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |