Content
78%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 lean, well-structured instruction-only skill: concrete tier examples, an explicit cadence, and a substantive security section, with no bundle files needed. The main weaknesses are repeated API-verification hedges and deferred enum values that leave the core recommendations one verification step short of fully actionable.
Suggestions
Consolidate the three repeated 'verify the valid values from the API/docs' instructions into a single verification note (e.g. one bolded step after the tier list) to remove redundancy and tighten conciseness.
Add an explicit ordered checklist for policy design (1. classify service criticality → 2. set SLO/RTO/RPO → 3. select DR approach → 4. check for contradictions) to strengthen workflow clarity and error recovery.
Include the exact command to list valid enum values (e.g. a concrete AWS CLI discovery snippet) once, so the 'resolve the actual enum values' step is copy-paste executable rather than deferred.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes domain competence (no concept padding), but the instruction to 'confirm the valid values from the API/docs' is repeated three times (SLO, DR approach, and the example note), and the 'illustratively' hedges add words that could be consolidated into one verification note. Efficient overall with minor instances that could be trimmed — anchor 4, not 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout: a worked tier example ('payments/auth → 99.99 + single-digit-minute RTO + ACTIVE_ACTIVE'), a specific command ('aws resiliencehubv2 create-policy help'), and a full cadence list. However, the core numeric targets and enum values are deliberately deferred ('resolve the actual enum values against the API before recommending'), leaving minor gaps before the guidance is fully executable — anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The policy-design flow is clearly structured (classify by criticality → set SLO/RTO/RPO → match DR approach) with explicit checkpoints ('Warn against contradictory policies', 'confirm the valid values from the API/docs'). It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit step ordering or checklist for the classification process and no error-recovery loop; it is above anchor 3 because validation checkpoints are stated explicitly rather than implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is under 50 lines, requires no external bundle files, and is organized into clearly headed sections with only clearly-signaled external 'Further reading' links. Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline, this earns anchor 5 on well-organized sections alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |