Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, well-structured, and includes validation checkpoints, making the workflow clear. The main weakness is actionability: several standardization steps describe outcomes rather than giving exact specifications or executable commands.
Suggestions
Replace vague steps with concrete specifications, e.g. 'Set official caps to 6 inches, carriage width to 6 feet, axle width to a uniform X chi' so each instruction is unambiguous.
Specify the exact measurement standard for axle width and road dimensions rather than 'standard specifications', since actionability hinges on concrete, copy-paste-ready values.
Add a brief 'prerequisites/inputs' note stating what starting state is required (e.g., a unified empire with regional variation to reconcile) to make the entry conditions explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-organized with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place (Overview, Steps, Expected Outcomes, Validation). | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Some steps give concrete specifics (6 inches, 6 feet, black, tenth month, 德水, 黔首), but others like 'Establish uniform axle widths' and 'Build roads to standard specifications' state outcomes without exact specifications or concrete commands. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered six-step sequence is paired with an explicit Validation section containing verification checks, providing the feedback loop expected for batch/administrative operations. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | As a simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, it is organized into clear sections (Overview, Steps, Expected Outcomes, Validation) meeting the simple-skill criterion for full marks. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |