Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-structured instruction-only skill with a clear sequence and genuine validation gates before its riskiest step. Its only real weakness is actionability: several directives rely on relative, undefined terms rather than concrete examples.
Suggestions
Illustrate the relative terms with brief concrete examples, e.g., what a 'smaller matter' or 'safer/external' topic looks like versus 'internal politics or royal family matters'.
Add one more concrete historical or scenario example beyond Jiang Ziya and King Wen to ground the 'reference historical parallels' step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean (~30 lines) and assumes Claude's intelligence, with no padded explanations of what trust or political counsel are; every section earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps give clear behavioral directives, but key terms like 'smaller matters', 'safer topics', and 'more sensitive topics' are left unspecified, and only one concrete example is offered ('Jiang Ziya and King Wen'), leaving actionable detail incomplete relative to the score-3 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | An 8-step numbered sequence is paired with a Verification section whose gates ('Confirm that value has been demonstrated...before attempting sensitive topics', 'Validate that the leader has explicitly invited counsel...before escalating') act as explicit validation checkpoints before the dangerous escalation. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no need for external references; the well-organized sections (Steps, Key Principle, Warning, Expected Outcomes, Verification) satisfy the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |