Content
86%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.
The content is a compact, well-structured procedural skill with concrete terminology and a validation section. Its main weakness is that the Validation block functions as a final checklist rather than an embedded error-recovery feedback loop within the steps.
Suggestions
Move verification inline as a checkpoint after the decree steps (e.g., 'If terminology is inconsistent across communications, revise and re-verify') to create an explicit validate-fix-retry loop and raise workflow clarity.
Add one short worked example showing the final composed decree (title + terminology + numbering applied together) to make the guidance fully copy-paste-ready.
Consider trimming the Overview sentence ('When unifying multiple states...'), as it restates context already implied by the procedure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient — terse numbered steps with compact bullet sub-points and no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, so every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific guidance throughout — exact ministers (丞相, 御史, 廷尉), title composition (皇+帝 = 皇帝), terminology (制/诏/朕), and the first ruler name (始皇帝) — with only minor gaps, fitting score 4 rather than the fully copy-paste-ready score-5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced numbered steps plus a terminal Validation section providing explicit checkpoints, but the validation reads as a final checklist rather than a validate-fix-retry feedback loop, so it sits at 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short, single-purpose skill (well under 50 lines, no bundle files) with clean, well-organized sections (Overview, Steps, Expected Outcomes, Validation), which the rubric's simple-skill note allows to score 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |