Content
71%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, actionable strategic skill with strong progressive disclosure and clear workflows. The main weakness is conciseness: time-sensitive pricing and model versions are inlined rather than isolated, and the four decisions are restated across multiple sections.
Suggestions
Move time-sensitive specifics (2026 model versions, per-token pricing, 'EU AI Act in force 2026') into the existing references (e.g. ai_cost_economics.md) or a dated 'current rates' section, and keep the body version-agnostic to avoid staleness and reduce token weight.
Avoid restating the four decisions verbatim across the intro, Core Responsibilities, and Workflows — let the intro list them once and have later sections reference rather than re-enumerate.
Add an explicit validation/feedback step in the cost-economics and build-vs-buy workflows (e.g. 're-run the calculator after confirming GPU spot rates; abort if breakeven shifts beyond tolerance') to lift workflow clarity to the top anchor.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and opinionated, but it inlines time-sensitive specifics (model versions 'Claude Sonnet 4.6', 'GPT-4o', 'Gemini 2.5', 2026 dates, per-token dollar pricing) outside any deprecated/old-patterns section, and repeats the same four decisions across the intro, Core Responsibilities, and Workflows. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides executable commands ('python scripts/model_buildvsbuy_calculator.py use_case.json') and concrete numeric thresholds (QPS < 100, latency > 1s, cost < $50K/month), though the full executable logic lives in the referenced scripts rather than inline. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four workflows are numbered with cross-check checkpoints against adjacent advisors and /cs:decide logging, giving a clear sequence with most checkpoints present; explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loops are absent but these are advisory rather than destructive/batch operations. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview of four decisions with well-signaled, one-level-deep references to four existing reference files and three executable scripts, each linked with a descriptive label in the References section — content is appropriately split and easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |