Content
85%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, well-structured planning workflow with explicit verification and failure-recovery loops, and it is appropriately organized for a simple skill. Its only weakness is actionability: guidance is actionable but abstract, lacking concrete examples or templates.
Suggestions
Add a brief concrete example or mini-template (e.g., a sample plan with steps, dependencies, and marked irreversible actions) to raise actionability.
Optionally show what 'verify the expected output' looks like in practice for one step type, so the checkpoint is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line (decompose, identify dependencies, flag irreversible actions, verify output) earns its place. It matches the 'lean, assumes competence' anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Uses concrete imperatives ('Decompose', 'Identify', 'Flag', 'verify the expected output'), but guidance is abstract with no specific examples, templates, or checklists. For an instruction-only skill it is actionable yet lacks the specificity of a copy-paste-ready anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Provides a numbered planning sequence and an execution phase with explicit validation checkpoints ('After each step, verify the expected output before proceeding') and a feedback loop ('If a step fails, re-evaluate the remaining plan'), matching the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external references; it is organized into well-signaled sections (Planning phase, Execution phase, Anti-pattern), which per the rubric's simple-skills note earns a 3 without bundle files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |