Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise and cleanly organized with a verification section, but its steps read as abstract principles rather than concrete, executable behavioral guidance with error-recovery loops.
Suggestions
Make each step concrete and verifiable: instead of 'Deflect honors and rewards through ritual humility', give the actual phrasing or action (e.g., 'credit advisors by name and attribute the outcome to the team').
Extend Verification with an error-recovery loop: specify what to do if a relationship shows resentment after these steps (e.g., re-acknowledge the harm privately before any further public statement).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — a one-sentence overview, terse steps, and short principle/outcome/verification lists — with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the level-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps like 'Deflect honors and rewards through ritual humility' and 'Frame your actions as duty rather than favor' describe attitudes rather than concrete, executable actions, landing at level 2 rather than fully actionable guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A 7-step sequence and a separate Verification section are present, but the steps are loosely-coupled principles rather than a dependent workflow, and verification is confirm-only with no error-recovery feedback loop. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references and well-organized into Overview/Steps/Key Principles/Expected Outcomes/Verification sections, meeting the simple-skill exception for a level-3 score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |