Content
77%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 well-structured, concise procedure with strong workflow clarity and built-in validation feedback loops. Its weakest dimension is actionability, where the inherently abstract leadership guidance would benefit from concrete examples of what a "visible sacrifice" entails.
Suggestions
Add 1-2 concrete examples of a "visible sacrifice" (e.g. relinquishing a prized perk, publicly reallocating budget) so the corrective-action step is unambiguous.
Specify how to conduct the "direct inquiry" root-cause diagnosis — e.g. a one-on-one question script or the specific questions to ask departing followers.
Tighten or remove the Overview line, which restates the frontmatter description and is the main source of redundancy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with tight one-line steps and no concept padding, but the Overview restates the frontmatter description, a minor redundancy that keeps it just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps are clear directives, but abstract instructions like "Make a visible sacrifice" and "investigate the root cause through direct inquiry" lack concrete illustrative examples, leaving key details unspecified. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly numbered 6-step sequence is backed by a Validation section with three explicit checkpoints and a feedback loop ("if departures continue, the sacrifice was insufficient or the root cause was misdiagnosed"). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Overview, Steps, Decision Point, Expected Outcome, Validation) and no need for external references, satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |