Content
78%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-structured instruction skill with a clear sequenced workflow and explicit verification steps. The main gap is the absence of a feedback/retry loop, which keeps workflow clarity at 4 rather than 5.
Suggestions
Add a brief feedback loop in the Verification section: if a consensus check fails, re-consult the dissenting source before finalizing the decision.
Tighten Step 1 lines (e.g., merge 'Clearly articulate the major question' and 'Ensure the matter is significant enough') to reduce minor verbosity.
Optionally include a one-line concrete example of applying the three-agree rule to make the interpretation table immediately actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-organized with minimal padding, though a few lines ('Clearly articulate the major question', 'Ensure the matter is significant enough') are slightly verbose and could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, specific guidance — ordered consultation sources, named consensus scenarios (Great Harmony, three-agree, divination-disagrees), and explicit decision rules — though it is instruction-only with no executable code, which is acceptable here. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear three-step sequence with a dedicated Verification section containing explicit checkpoints; falls just short of 5 because it lacks a true validate-fix-retry feedback loop for error recovery. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short (<60 line), single-purpose skill with no external references and well-organized section headers, meeting the simple-skill exception for full marks. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |