Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a clean, well-organized reference for the 五服制度 framework with a concrete escalation decision-mapping, but it is primarily descriptive: it restates a known concept, lacks executable guidance, and its validation steps check the framework against itself rather than guiding real operations.
Suggestions
Drop or tighten the concept restatement ('A hierarchical administrative framework...') since Claude already knows 五服制度, to improve token efficiency.
Reframe the Validation section as operational checkpoints (e.g., 'confirm the selected response matches the violated tier before applying it') rather than self-referential consistency checks, to add a genuine feedback loop.
Add concrete, executable guidance for how to apply an enforcement response (e.g., a decision procedure or template for issuing 脩意/脩言/脩文/脩名/脩德), raising actionability above descriptive mapping.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is tersely structured with no padding, but it opens by restating what the system is ('A hierarchical administrative framework for managing relations...'), a concept Claude largely already knows. This matches anchor 2 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'); it is not verbose (so above 1) but not maximally lean (so below 3). | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides a concrete decision-mapping (escalation 不祭→脩意 through 脩德, then 刑罚/攻伐/征讨/威让/文告 by zone), but offers no executable commands or implementation detail, only named responses. This fits anchor 2 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete'); above anchor 1 because the lookup table is specific, below anchor 3 because nothing is copy-paste executable. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The escalation protocol is sequenced with a two-tier fallback (cultivation, then punitive measures) and a Validation section is present, but the validation is self-referential (checking the framework against its own tiers) rather than a real feedback loop on operations. This matches anchor 2 ('steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'). | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the body is a single self-contained document split into clear sections (Overview, The Five Zones, Escalation Protocol, Expected Outcomes, Validation) with no nested references. Per the rubric's simple-skills note, well-organized sections with no need for external references earn anchor 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |