Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise, well-organized, and includes explicit verification checkpoints, making the workflow clear for a single-purpose planning skill. The main gap is actionability: steps describe what to think through rather than giving concrete, specific guidance.
Suggestions
Tighten each step with a concrete sub-action or example (e.g., what 'document their failure' looks like, what counts as a 'command asset') to lift actionability from abstract direction to specific guidance.
Add a brief concrete illustration of one decision point so the trade-offs are tangible rather than generic.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — short numbered steps, terse bullet sections — and does not pad with concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps are imperative and sequenced ('Identify critical assets', 'Map who has access', 'Request assistance') but remain abstract planning direction without concrete specifics, fitting the some-concrete-but-incomplete anchor rather than fully executable guidance at 3. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 10-step sequence is paired with a dedicated 'Verification' section that acts as validation checkpoints, matching the explicit-validation anchor; it is not the 2-level anchor because validation steps are explicitly present. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed, the body is organized into well-labeled sections (Overview, Steps, Decision Points, Expected Outcomes, Verification), which per the simple-skills note earns a 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |