Content
72%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 concise, well-structured overview for a simple planning skill, weakened mainly by the absence of concrete decision criteria and validation steps. Adding explicit triggers for when to add each role and a consistency check before returning output would lift the weaker dimensions.
Suggestions
Spell out the decision criteria for each role (e.g. 'add a Memory Curator when more than one agent writes shared state') so the procedure is executable rather than guideline-level.
Add a validation/consistency checkpoint before the Output step (e.g. 'confirm every handoff has a receiving owner and the role list has no orphaned responsibilities').
Provide a minimal template or field list for the returned blueprint so the Output is concrete and copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding; it assumes Claude's competence and never explains what agents or teams are, so every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete file-path templates ('agents/10-single-agent-builder/agent.md', 'skills/<capability>/SKILL.md', '.agentlas/company-blueprint.json') and an output deliverable list, but the deciding guidance ('Add team roles only when routing, memory, review, policy, or parallel ownership is useful') lacks the specific criteria needed to execute unambiguously. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-5 are sequenced, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops to confirm the resulting design is internally consistent before returning it, so checkpoints remain implicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple skill under 50 lines with no external references, organized into clear Procedure and Output sections, meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |