Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-structured decision framework with clear sequencing and explicit validation. The main weakness is actionability: the magnitude-evaluation and reward-determination steps are descriptive rather than concrete, lacking specific thresholds or output formats.
Suggestions
Replace the open magnitude questions with concrete decision criteria or a scoring rubric (e.g., crisis vs. peacetime thresholds) so rankings are reproducible.
Provide an example filled-in oath/title record or a template showing the expected output structure for step 4.
Add concrete guidance mapping each tier to a typical land-grant size or hereditary span so the reward step is actionable rather than a category list.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient — every section (Overview, Steps, Decision Points, Expected Outcomes, Validation) earns its place with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, fitting the score-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Decision Points give concrete tier-mapping rules, but the magnitude-evaluation step is only open questions ('Did the service save the dynasty?') and the reward step lists categories (title rank, land grant, hereditary privileges) without concrete values, leaving it at the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Four steps are clearly sequenced and an explicit Validation section provides a 3-point checklist verifying classification, oath recording, and proportionality — matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps / checklists' anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with well-organized labeled sections and no bundle files needed; per the rubric's simple-skills note this qualifies for a 3 without external file references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |