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 concise, well-organized instruction skill with a clear sequenced workflow and explicit verification checkpoints; its main weakness is actionability depth and the lack of a concrete worked example.
Suggestions
Add a short worked example (a brief scenario walked through the 5 steps) to push actionability toward 5.
Make the verification feedback loop explicit, e.g., 'If a contradiction is found in step 4, revisit the basis identified in step 1 before deciding', to lift workflow clarity to 5.
Trim the Overview/Expected Outcome sections, which restate the frontmatter description and Key Principle, to recover a few tokens toward conciseness 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with short bulleted sections and no padding of concepts Claude already knows; only minor redundancy (Overview re-states the frontmatter, Expected Outcome overlaps the Key Principle) keeps it off 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Each step poses a concrete diagnostic question with enumerated options (e.g., "Why were you given authority? (Ability, relationship, or lack of alternatives?)"), giving mostly actionable guidance; the gap is the absence of a worked example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step numbered sequence is paired with a dedicated Verification section of three checkpoints; it falls short of 5 because the feedback loop is implicit rather than an explicit 'if check fails, return to step N'. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no need for external references and well-organized section headers, it meets the simple-skill exception that allows a 5 on organization alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |