Content
71%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 concise, well-organized instruction skill with a clear workflow and verification checkpoints. Its weakest point is actionability, where several evaluation steps remain abstract rather than specifying concrete methods.
Suggestions
Add concrete evaluation methods for the abstract steps, e.g. how to 'Test specific competencies' (sample task, scoring rubric) and how to 'Assess character and judgment' (reference checks, structured interview questions).
Add an explicit feedback loop in the Selection Process, e.g. 'If a conflict is found in step 4, disqualify the candidate or document an override with justification before proceeding.'
Tighten the Overview and Expected Outcome sections to remove restatements of the obvious (e.g. 'to ensure effective governance') to push conciseness toward lean efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with short bullet lists and no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; only the Overview and Expected Outcome lines slightly over-state the obvious. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | A structured numbered process with concrete sub-bullets is present, but steps like 'Test specific competencies' and 'Assess character and judgment' lack specific executable methods or tools. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear five-step selection sequence is paired with a dedicated Verification section providing explicit checkpoints, though no error-recovery feedback loop ('if conflict found, do X') is specified. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, organized into clear, well-signaled sections — meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |