Content
100%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 exemplary: lean, fully executable, and organized around a validated two-stage workflow with explicit gating, exit-code semantics, and a redaction safeguard for secrets. No dimension shows a gap against the top anchors.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line is operational or directly clarifies the division of responsibility ('The Cloud server never calls an LLM... You are the stage-2 judge'); there is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. Re-reading the 4 anchor, no over-explanation instances could be trimmed, so the 5 anchor fits best. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable throughout: exact commands with exit-code semantics ('--strict --acknowledge-warn exits 0; --strict alone exits 2 on WARN'), an exact copy-paste JSON contract with enumerated verdict and type values, and concrete file paths ('.agentlas/security-scan.json', '<agent-folder>/.agentlas/security-llm-judgment.json'). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The two-stage sequence is explicit with validation checkpoints and feedback loops: judge files, write the judgment, re-run the scanner to merge, then gate on the combined verdict with BLOCK/WARN/PASS handling and an approval loop before publish. The destructive/batch cap does not apply since validation and gating are explicitly present. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single-file skill with no bundle files; all content (commands, judgment contract, CLI reference, output contract) is needed on every invocation, so inlining is correct. Sections (Stage 1, Stage 2, CLI, Output) are well-organized and easy to navigate with no buried or nested references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 20 / 20 Passed |