Content
78%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 body is a well-structured, concise procedural skill with explicit validation checkpoints and concrete ritual examples. The main gap is the absence of explicit error-recovery feedback loops and a few high-level action statements.
Suggestions
Add a brief feedback loop under Validation, e.g. 'If a checkpoint fails, halt the mobilization and re-brief the troops before proceeding.'
Tighten high-level steps like 'State the mission objectives clearly' and 'Maintain formation and discipline' into more concrete, verifiable instructions.
Trim redundant restatement such as 'These symbols represent delegated military authority from the ruler' since the Overview already conveys this.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and mostly efficient with domain specifics Claude would not know, but a line like 'These symbols represent delegated military authority from the ruler' mildly restates the overview. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, actionable guidance with worked examples ('苍兕苍兕', '後至者斩'), though some steps remain high-level ('State the mission objectives clearly', 'Maintain formation and discipline'). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step sequence is paired with a three-item Validation section and Decision Points, satisfying the destructive-operation validation requirement; it lacks explicit error-recovery feedback loops. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, no external references needed, and organized into well-signaled sections (Overview, Steps, Decision Points, Expected Outcomes, Validation). | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |