Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is lean and well-structured with a clear sequenced workflow and an explicit verification checklist. Its main weakness is actionability: the steps describe what to do abstractly without a concrete petition template or example language to execute against.
Suggestions
Add a short sample petition skeleton or example phrasing under step 3 so the 'Submit a written petition' step is executable rather than descriptive.
Show a concrete mitigating-argument sentence (e.g., an intoxication plea template) instead of only listing the categories of arguments.
Tighten the abstract steps ('Exit secretly', 'Hide your plans') into specific, checkable actions so each step is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~25-line body assumes Claude's competence and adds no general-knowledge padding; every section (Overview, Steps, Warning, Verification) earns its place without explaining concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps are concrete in intent ('Submit a written petition', examples like intoxication / disproportionate punishment) but lack executable specifics such as a sample petition template or phrasing, leaving key details missing; it sits above the vague anchor but below copy-paste-ready guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The six steps are explicitly numbered in sequence and accompanied by a dedicated Verification checklist with three checkpoints, matching the anchor for a clear sequence with explicit validation steps. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed, the body is organized into well-labeled sections (Overview, Steps, Warning, Verification), which the rubric's simple-skills note permits to score 3 on organization alone. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |