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 decision framework with a clear sequenced workflow and a verification checklist. The main gap is actionability: the evaluation steps are probing questions rather than crisp executable rules.
Suggestions
Convert each Evaluation Step from open questions into a concrete decision rule or test with a pass/fail outcome (e.g., 'If you cannot state what the provider gains, REJECT') so guidance is executable rather than reflective.
Tie each Warning Sign to an explicit action in the Decision Framework so every signal maps to a REJECT/INVESTIGATE/CONSIDER verdict instead of leaving the response implicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with tight bullets and no padding about concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place. It is above level 2 because there is no unnecessary explanation to trim. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The Decision Framework table and Warning Signs give concrete condition-to-action mappings, but the five Evaluation Steps are open-ended probing questions rather than fully specified actions, leaving the guidance partially actionable. It is above level 1 because the table and checklist are genuinely concrete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The five Evaluation Steps are explicitly numbered and sequenced, and the Verification section provides a three-item checklist that acts as a validation checkpoint before finalizing the decision. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references, and its sections are well-organized, so per the simple-skill scoring note progressive disclosure scores 3 on organization alone. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |