Content
87%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a tight, actionable routing skill: terse gotchas with specific flags and commands, plus a clean operation-reference table linking to two genuine one-level-deep reference files. Its only gap is workflow clarity — guardrails exist as scattered gotchas but no explicit multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints is laid out for the riskier contact/escalation operations.
Suggestions
Add a short sequenced workflow (identify sender -> verify trusted-contact status -> act/escalate) with an explicit validation checkpoint before mutating trusted contacts, so workflow_clarity reaches the top anchor.
Cross-link the manage-primary-channel.sh script from the body (e.g. in the Operation Reference table) so the bundled executable helper is discoverable alongside the reference docs.
Make the first-contact protocol's 'ask in admin's language' rule a concrete step with a verification prompt rather than only a gotcha, to pair the guardrail with an actionable sequence.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: a one-line overview, terse gotcha bullets, and a routing table — it assumes Claude's competence and explains no background concepts, so every token earns its place. Not 2 because there is no padded explanation to tighten. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable specifics throughout — '--action reset', explicit 'channel' and 'target' params, 'to field maps to target', 'agt get managers -o json', 'copaw channels send' — give copy-paste-ready guidance for an instruction-oriented skill. Not 2 because the guidance names exact flags, fields, and commands rather than pseudocode. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Operation Reference table sequences 'situation -> read this doc' and the gotchas act as guardrails (e.g. 'silently ignored until admin explicitly approves'), but there is no explicit multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints for operations like trusted-contact management. Not 3 because checkpoints are scattered as gotchas rather than an explicit validate/fix/retry sequence; not 1 because a clear routing sequence and guardrails are present. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A concise overview plus a well-signaled situation->doc table points to two real one-level-deep references (references/identity-and-contacts.md, references/primary-channel.md, both verified present), with detail appropriately split out. Not 2 because references are clearly signaled, single-level, and real rather than nested or inline. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |