Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, well-organized, and includes explicit verification checkpoints, making the workflow clear for a simple instruction-only skill. The main gap is actionability, where concrete specifics are present but a complete worked example would make it fully actionable.
Suggestions
Add a brief worked example showing one complete column assignment (commander, departure point, route, force size) so the procedure is concrete rather than directive.
Tie the verification checkpoints back to specific steps (e.g. 'After Step 2, confirm every column has a named commander and route') to make the validation loop explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place (e.g. 'Assign equal forces to each column (e.g., 10,000 cavalry each)'), matching the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete specifics exist (named departure points 上谷/云中/代郡/雁门, named general titles, 10,000-cavalley figures), but guidance stays directive ('Identify', 'Determine', 'Appoint') without a complete worked example of a real assignment, leaving it short of fully executable instruction. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Five clearly sequenced steps are followed by an explicit 'Verification' section with checkpoints ('Confirm each column has a clearly assigned departure point', 'Validate that the command hierarchy ... is established'), satisfying the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | At under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is split into well-organized sections (Overview, Steps, Key Principles, Expected Outcome, Verification), which the rubric allows to score 3 for simple skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |