Content
77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced interview script with strong validation checkpoints, weakened mainly by verbosity and a monolithic single-file structure that lacks in-bundle progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Trim the repeated 'Why this matters' rationales and the capacity-constrained preamble; assume Claude can infer clinic context and keep only decision-relevant rationale.
Split the Part 0–5 interview questions and verbatim user-facing prompt blocks into reference files (e.g. references/interview-parts.md) signaled from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.
Condense the 'After writing' capabilities list and closing notes, which repeat information already conveyed in the setup steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly actionable but padded with repeated 'Why this matters' rationales and contextual preamble ('Clinics are structurally capacity-constrained...') that Claude could infer; the ~360-line body could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides exact file paths, verbatim user-facing phrasings, concrete flags, and a precise ✓/⚪/✗ integration-probing procedure — copy-paste ready guidance throughout. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear Part 0→5 sequence with explicit validation checkpoints: fact verification as answers arise, a 'Before writing — re-read' contradiction check, and 'never report ✓ based on configuration alone'. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-sectioned with headers but monolithic at ~360 lines; the interview parts and verbatim prompt blocks could be split into reference files rather than kept inline. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |