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 lean, well-structured governance procedure with concrete file names, setting values, and explicit promotion-blocking checkpoints. Its only weakness is minor incompleteness in executable detail — registry entry structure and success-predicate format are invoked but never specified.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and every line carries governance-specific instruction (e.g. "Curator decisions never authorize executable file changes by themselves"). The one-line intro is mildly redundant with the description but does not constitute padding. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly concrete, executable guidance: exact file paths (".agentlas/skill-registry.json", ".agentlas/skill-trials.jsonl") and exact setting values ("tier: candidate", "runtimeFirstClassRecallEnabled: false"). Minor gaps: no schema or example entry for the registry files, and "Add success predicates and situation tags for every skill" gives no format or location. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 9-step numbered sequence with explicit checkpoints — step 4 gates the recall flag on staged-diff acceptance and step 8 "Block promotion when authority separation, sealed holdouts, replayability, or rollback evidence is missing". Below level 5 because there is no explicit error-recovery feedback loop (what to do when a gate blocks promotion) and no instruction for how to verify evidence like replayability. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Procedure, Output) and no external references needed; the simple-skill exception applies, so well-organized sections alone warrant full credit. No bundle files exist and none are required. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |