Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise and well-organized with concrete file-level directives, but several procedural steps lack the schemas/examples needed for fully executable guidance and the workflow has no explicit validation feedback loop. Adding concrete structures for the abstract steps and an explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoint would lift actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Provide a concrete schema or minimal example for the abstract steps (e.g., a sample skill-registry.json entry with success predicates and situation tags, and the structure of a durable-error budget).
Add an explicit validation checkpoint with a feedback loop (e.g., "Verify authority separation, sealed holdouts, replayability, and rollback evidence; if any is missing, block promotion and record the gap before retrying").
Show the expected shape of the trial/decision JSONL records so steps 2 and 5-6 are copy-paste ready rather than descriptive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no concept explanations or padding; every line is a concrete directive that assumes Claude's competence. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete file paths and field values (skill-registry.json, tier: candidate, runtimeFirstClassRecallEnabled: false) appear, but several steps (success predicates, durable-error budget terms) lack the schema or examples needed to execute them fully. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 1-9 sequence and a promotion gate (step 8) exist, but there is no explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop, leaving checkpoints implicit for a governance operation. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized Procedure and Output sections and no bundle files or nested references, fitting the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |