Content
85%Reviews 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 skill with concrete rumor templates and an explicit verification checklist. The only slack is mild redundancy between the intro, steps, and expected outcomes.
Suggestions
Drop the restating intro line or fold it into Prerequisites to remove redundancy with the description.
Merge 'Expected Outcomes' into the relevant steps or trim it, since it largely restates steps 4-5.
Tighten the Verification section into a compact checklist to improve token efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but the opening sentence restates the description and 'Expected Outcomes' overlaps the steps; the Verification section is slightly verbose and could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete rumor templates ('Planning to rebel', 'deliberately prolonging the campaign', 'secretly negotiating') and a real example quote ('only two cities remain unconquered, why the delay?'); absence of code is appropriate for an instruction-only skill. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Five steps are clearly sequenced and an explicit Verification checklist supplies validation checkpoints (confirm strained relationship, validate plausible references, ensure a plan to capitalize). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, yet organized into clearly labeled sections (Prerequisites, Steps, Historical Example, Expected Outcomes, Verification) — satisfying the rubric's short-skill allowance. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |