Content
86%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-structured governance procedure with clear steps and a validation section. Interleaving validation as a fix-retry loop and specifying merit/stipend criteria would raise the borderline dimensions.
Suggestions
Promote validation from a trailing section into an explicit 'verify → fix → re-verify' loop after the appointment and reporting steps.
Define concrete merit criteria and stipend parameters so appointments and treasury stipends are unambiguous to execute.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, well-sectioned body with no generic concept padding; even the Rationale adds domain-specific Li Si reasoning rather than restating what Claude already knows. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance for an instruction-only skill (36 commanderies, named 守/尉/监 roles, treasury stipends), but some operational specifics like merit criteria or stipend sizing are left unspecified. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered 6-step sequence with a closing Validation section covering all 36 commanderies, but validation is post-hoc rather than an interleaved fix-and-retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no external references needed and clean section organization (Overview, Steps, Rationale, Outcomes, Validation) — meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |