Content
67%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 routing skill with concrete shell and MCP tooling and clear validation checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are repeated restatement of the same boundary rule across sections and placeholder arguments in the tool sequence that keep it from being fully copy-paste ready.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'never fall back to legacy cargo / report source_not_supported' rule into one Hard Rules section instead of restating it in sections 0, 1, 3, and 5.
Replace the 'workOrder=..., selection=...' placeholders in the section 3 tool sequence with a minimal concrete example or a clear note that the host LLM authors these from the prior step's output.
Tighten section 1.5 ('Core project first-contact contract') into a checklist so the bootstrap requirements read as verifiable items rather than a prose paragraph.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean shell commands and typed tool sequences, but the 'never fall back to legacy cargo search / report source_not_supported' boundary is restated across sections 0, 1, 3, and 5, which is tightening-eligible padding; not a 4 because the repetition is noticeable rather than minor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides complete executable shell snippets (runner resolution, auth ensure) and a concrete ordered MCP tool-call sequence with typed parameters; falls short of 5 because WorkOrder/selection args are shown as '...' placeholders rather than copy-paste-ready values. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 0→5 sequence with explicit validation gates (validate_selection, validate_execution_receipt) and stop/report feedback loops (bootstrap blocked, source_not_supported); not a 5 because some error-recovery steps are described abstractly rather than as concrete fix-and-retry loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into numbered sections with content appropriately kept inline for a routing skill and no nested or buried references; not a 5 because no bundle files exist and a few dense prose blocks (sections 1.5, 5) could be tighter rather than relying purely on sectioning. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |