Content
85%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 richly structured, highly actionable workflow with strong sequencing and validation, written tightly for a complex domain. Its one substantive defect is that the entire referenced bundle (references, scripts, examples) is missing, which makes the otherwise-excellent progressive disclosure non-functional.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced bundle files — at minimum references/01, 02, 05, 06, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21 and the scripts (ratios.py, score.py, valuation.py, verify_data.py, lint_report.py) plus the examples/ — so the disclosed navigation actually resolves.
If a subset is intentionally omitted, state in the body which references are authoritative vs. optional, so a reader knows which missing paths are gaps rather than the whole bundle being absent.
Trim the rhetorical emphasis passages in 'Non-negotiables' and the document-diligence section to lift conciseness from 4 to 5 without losing the behavioral signal.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Efficient and dense for a complex domain, with no padding on concepts Claude already knows, but several rhetorical emphases ('This is the failure mode that destroys the value of the whole analysis', 'has read perhaps a fifth of the official record') could be trimmed; not a 5 because of these minor over-explanation instances, not a 3 because the bulk genuinely earns its tokens. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-paste-ready commands throughout — 'python scripts/verify_data.py <intake>.json', 'python scripts/score.py --example-segments', 'python scripts/valuation.py --template / --example', 'python scripts/lint_report.py <report>.md' — with a specific output filename contract and per-stage reference routing; for an instruction-only skill this fully meets the executable-guidance anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Stages 0–10 are explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints (recency gate, verify_data.py, Stage 3 kill-criteria, Stage 9 challenge pass, Stage 10 lint) and feedback loops ('Fix every error-level finding before proceeding', lint errors treated as blocking, escalate to Forensic mode); matches the explicit-validation-and-recovery anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The in-file design is exemplary — a clear overview, well-signaled one-level references, and a reference-index table — but the actual bundle directories (references/, scripts/, examples/) are absent, so every referenced path (references/01-data-sourcing.md, scripts/ratios.py, examples/standard-analysis-example.md, etc.) cannot be navigated; per the rubric's instruction to score against the actual bundle structure, the broken disclosure caps the score at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |