Content
88%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 strong, highly actionable body: copy-paste commands for all three deterministic tools, a numbered workflow with expected outputs and a sample-based verification, explicit assumptions and anti-patterns. The main costs are repeated statements of the never-auto-approve invariant and sibling boundaries, plus an inline forcing-question library that should live in a reference file.
Suggestions
State the never-auto-approve invariant once (e.g., in the intro) and drop the repetitions in Workflow step 5 and Anti-patterns; consolidate the sibling-boundary content from "Do NOT use", Anti-patterns, and "Distinct from" into the Distinct-from table alone.
Move the forcing-question library to a reference file (e.g., references/grill_questions.md) and keep a one-line pointer plus the lock-ordering rule in SKILL.md, keeping the main file a lean overview.
Include the expected --sample output (verdict 52.7/100 DECLINE and the AE → Deal Desk → VP Sales → CFO → CRO → General Counsel chain) as an explicit verification step inside the Workflow section, so correctness can be checked before running on real deals; also verify that all referenced scripts/, references/, and assets/ files actually ship in the bundle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Efficient, dense prose with tables, copy-paste commands, and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; however the never-auto-approve invariant is restated ~4× (intro, workflow step 5, anti-patterns) and sibling boundaries are delineated in three separate sections ("Do NOT use", Anti-patterns, "Distinct from"). Fits anchor 4 (minor over-explanation that could be trimmed) rather than 3, since the padding is repetitive emphasis rather than unnecessary explanation, and rather than 5 because the repetition is genuinely removable. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable: "python3 scripts/deal_scorer.py --input my_deal.json --profile enterprise-software", documented --sample/--help/--output flags, enumerated intake fields, and a worked example with real numbers ("correctly DECLINEs at 52.7 / 100 composite") covering all three tools. Not 4: the examples are copy-paste ready and cover the common cases for every script. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A 5-step numbered workflow with the exact command per step, expected outputs per step, and an explicit verification anchor (run --sample, expect DECLINE at 52.7/100); the forcing-question checklist with "Lock 1-4 before opening 5-7" and scripted invocation order supplies checklist discipline. Not 4: checkpoints are explicit, and the cap-3 rule doesn't apply since the operations are read-only analysis, not destructive or batch operations. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure: a References section clearly signals three one-level-deep files with per-file descriptions, and scripts are summarized in a table. Not 5: the ~33-line forcing-question library is inline content that belongs in a reference file, and the referenced bundle files (scripts/*.py, references/*.md, assets/deal_intake_template.md) are not present in the skill directory, so the referenced paths cannot be verified. Not 3: the overview/reference split is otherwise clean and well-signaled. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |