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 conceptual skill with a clear sequenced workflow and an explicit validation section. The main gap is actionability: the guidance leans on reflective questions rather than concrete, operational decision procedures.
Suggestions
Convert key reflective prompts into concrete, checkable criteria (e.g., 'List at least two exit options independent of the other party's goodwill; if none exist, do not proceed').
Add a short worked example mapping a sample scenario through the four steps to make the decision procedure unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean (~35 lines) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives one concrete decision rule ('If the other party is predatory and you lack guaranteed exit, do not proceed') but most steps are reflective prompts ('Consider: If you enter... who suffers more?', 'Can you leave if things go wrong?') rather than concrete executable procedures. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence (Identify → Apply parable → Evaluate exit → Decision) is paired with an explicit three-item Validation section, providing checkpoints; not a destructive/batch operation so no cap applies. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, and well-organized into Overview, Steps, Expected Outcomes, and Validation sections, which satisfies the simple-skill allowance. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |