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.
A compact, well-structured procedural skill with a clear sequence and a validation checklist. Its main gap is actionability: the steps name what to do but lack the engineering specifics required to carry them out.
Suggestions
Add concrete quantitative or engineering specifics to the steps (e.g., required channel capacity relative to river flow, minimum labor estimates, expected time-to-wall-collapse) so the guidance is executable rather than descriptive.
Tighten the Historical Example so it does not restate the description verbatim, reclaiming tokens for the added execution detail.
Consider an in-line validation checkpoint after 'Execute diversion' (e.g., verify water is reaching the walls before waiting) to add the feedback loop that would lift workflow clarity to 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean with well-organized sections and minimal over-explanation; the Historical Example lightly restates the description and could be trimmed, but otherwise every section earns its place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete domain guidance ('Construct canals or channels (河沟)', 'Breach or redirect water flow') but stop at high-level hints, omitting specifics like channel sizing, required labor, or expected duration needed to actually execute. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced 1-6 and a Validation section provides a pre-flight checklist, which keeps this destructive operation above the 3-cap; it falls short of 5 only because there is no in-sequence validate-fix-retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple, under-50-line skill with clear section headers and no need for external references, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top progressive-disclosure score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |