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 well-structured instruction skill: executable tool commands, a clearly ordered 12-phase workflow with confirmation and linting checkpoints, and exemplary one-level-deep reference structure. The main improvements are trimming minor rhetorical padding and adding an explicit fix-and-re-validate loop for linter failures. The referenced bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/) could not be verified because they were not present in the review directory.
Suggestions
Add an explicit error-recovery loop after the lint step (e.g., 'If okf_linter reports errors: fix the flagged concepts (missing type, broken links) and re-run until it passes') so the workflow has a clear feedback loop, lifting workflow_clarity.
Trim rhetorical padding such as 'you draw the blueprint before erecting the building' and condense the persona adjective stack ('business strategist, CFO, CMO, COO, and systems architect') to tighten conciseness without losing the persona.
Add a brief one-line instruction on what to do with linter output before regenerating the index (e.g., treat okf_linter failures as blocking before index_generator) to close the validation gap between phases.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely efficient — operating principles, phase order, and tool commands carry real operational content — but there are minor rhetorical flourishes that could be trimmed: 'you draw the blueprint before erecting the building' and the persona framing 'a senior chief of staff who combines in a single agent a business strategist, CFO, CMO, COO, and systems architect'. This matches anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed') rather than anchor 5 ('every token earns its place'), and is clearly above anchor 3 since there is no true unnecessary explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste-ready commands ('python scripts/scaffold_bundle.py "My Company" --out ./my-company --has-product --has-tech', 'python scripts/okf_linter.py ./my-company', 'python scripts/index_generator.py ./my-company'), a recommended flow (scaffold → interview → write → linter → index), concrete link syntax ('[Identity](../00-fundacao/identidade.md)'), and a numbered 'How to start' procedure covering the common case. Anchor 5 ('copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases') is met; nothing is left as pseudocode. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step process is clearly sequenced: the 12-phase order with skip conditions ('06-produto (skip if pure service)', '08-tech (only if there is digital infrastructure)'), per-phase steps (a)–(e) ending in 'confirm and write' and lint/index runs, plus validation via okf_linter and 'Stop and wait' checkpoints. However, there is no explicit error-recovery loop stating what to do when the linter fails (fix and re-validate), which keeps it at anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') rather than anchor 5's 'feedback loops for error recovery'. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a genuine overview pointing one level deep to clearly signaled detail files: 'full detail in references/okf_conformance.md', 'vocabulary in references/type_vocabulary.md', 'detailed in references/phase_playbook.md', plus an explicit References and Assets section where each file is described ('— the 12 phases: objective, questions (3-5/block), and generated files'). Bulk phase detail is properly split out rather than inlined, matching anchor 5. Note: the bundle directories (references/, scripts/, assets/) were not present in the review directory, so the referenced paths could not be verified as real files — the score reflects the body's structure as written. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |