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.
A concise, well-structured skill body with a clear sequence and verification section. The main gap is actionability: the assessment and rival-neutralization steps are named but not given concrete operational criteria.
Suggestions
Add concrete decision criteria for 'Evaluate Support' and 'Consider External Powers' (e.g., what level of ministerial backing or foreign support shifts the decision).
Define what 'Eliminate Rivals' / 'neutralize' concretely entails and a validation check before executing that destructive step.
Specify how to detect and handle the warning signs (e.g., response when military loyalty is divided) rather than only listing them.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and well-organized with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (priority order, process, warnings, verification) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete procedural sequence (convene council, present claims, evaluate support, eliminate rivals) but the operational specifics of assessment and 'neutralize rivals' remain high-level and abstract rather than executable. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 7-step resolution sequence with a dedicated Verification section providing checkpoints (confirm priority order followed, validate consultation, check warning signs), though the destructive 'Eliminate Rivals' step lacks explicit validation/rollback around it. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, no external references needed, and well-organized into clearly headed sections — meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |