Content
82%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.
The body is a highly actionable router spec: a concrete keyword routing table, an unambiguous decision workflow, ready-to-use output templates, and worked examples. Its only weaknesses are minor promotional padding, the absence of a routing tie-break/confirmation checkpoint, and slightly brittle cross-skill relative links.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The routing table, workflow, output templates, and examples are dense and operational with no concept re-teaching, but the intro repeats the description and 'Why This Is the Killer Command' is promotional padding — minor over-explanation that could be trimmed, matching anchor 4 rather than a fully lean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a literal signal-to-route keyword table, an executable 5-step decision procedure, copy-paste output templates for all three routing outcomes, and five worked examples covering single-role, multi-role, and ambiguous cases — fully executable guidance matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is a clear, ordered decision sequence with an explicit ambiguity fallback (office hours) and decision logging, but there is no checkpoint for confirming the chosen route or a tie-break rule when keyword matches conflict with intent — minor validation gaps, matching anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; all routing logic is appropriately inlined in one well-sectioned ~100-line file with clearly signaled one-level-deep links to the chief-of-staff and context-engine skills. The external relative links (../../../c-level-advisor/...) are slightly brittle, keeping it at 'good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than fully clear navigation. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |