Content
72%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.
A lean, well-organized instruction-only workflow that respects token budget and needs no external references. It loses points only on actionability and workflow clarity, where steps stay abstract and lack explicit validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add concrete methods or examples to abstract steps — e.g., for 'Search broadly first', list specific source types or query-expansion tactics so guidance is executable rather than directive.
Insert an explicit validation checkpoint, such as a step verifying the original question is answered before synthesis, to convert the implicit 'Flag uncertainty' step into a real feedback loop.
Tighten the most abstract steps ('Filter ruthlessly', 'Read deeply') with one concrete acceptance criterion each so Claude can judge when to proceed.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Each step is a terse one-line imperative with a compact rationale and zero concept exposition Claude already knows — every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete directives ('Write the specific question', 'Record source URL/DOI at time of reading'), but several remain directive-level abstraction ('Search broadly first') with no executable methods, so it is not fully copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered 7-step sequence is present, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops; step 7 ('Flag uncertainty') is only an implicit checkpoint. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, and well organized as a numbered list plus an anti-pattern callout — meeting the rubric's allowance for short, self-contained skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |