Content
70%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-organized, instruction-only skill with a clear sequenced workflow and an explicit verification checklist. It loses points on conciseness (benefit-fluff) and actionability (abstract role labels rather than concrete identification guidance).
Suggestions
Cut or compress the 'Expected Outcomes' section and the redundant 'Overview' line to tighten token efficiency.
Make role assignment more actionable by specifying how to evaluate 'best at' a domain (e.g., criteria or a quick comparison prompt) instead of abstract labels like 'Tactical expert'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean, but the 'Overview' restates the frontmatter and the 'Expected Outcomes' section ('Optimal use of available talent', 'Organizational efficiency') is benefit-fluff that could be tightened — not every token earns its place. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The numbered steps and Decision Framework table give concrete guidance, but role labels like 'Tactical expert', 'Governance expert', and 'Expendable but capable' remain abstract rather than specifying how to identify or apply them. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Four sequenced steps are paired with an explicit three-item 'Verification' checklist that confirms comparisons, assignments, and emissary placement — a clear sequence with validation checkpoints. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed, yet organized into clearly labeled sections (Overview, Steps, Decision Framework, Expected Outcomes, Verification); per the rubric's simple-skill note this earns a 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |