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-sequenced, and includes explicit validation with feedback loops, scoring strongly on conciseness, workflow clarity, and progressive disclosure. Its weakness is actionability: the central directives ('visible sacrifice', 'direct inquiry') are concrete in intent but underspecified in execution.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of an acceptable 'visible sacrifice' — e.g., relinquishing a specific privilege or possession tied to the cited grievance — so Step 4 is unambiguous rather than open-ended.
Give the 'direct inquiry' in Step 2 specific questions to ask (e.g., 'What contradiction between my stated values and my behavior are you seeing?') instead of leaving the method unspecified.
Specify how to 'monitor follower sentiment' in Step 1 concretely — a recurring check-in cadence or an exit-conversation trigger — so the first action is executable rather than descriptive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — a one-sentence Overview, terse numbered steps, and compact Decision Point/Expected Outcome/Validation sections — with no exposition of concepts Claude already knows, matching the score-3 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor; not a 2 because there is no unnecessary explanation to tighten. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps like 'Make a visible sacrifice that demonstrates commitment to stated values' and 'investigate the root cause through direct inquiry' name actions but leave key details unspecified (what sacrifice, which questions), matching the score-2 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details' anchor; not a 1 because a clear procedure and Decision Point do instruct rather than merely describe, and not a 3 because the core actions lack concrete, copy-ready specifics. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Quotes a six-step numbered sequence plus a Validation section with feedback loops — 'if departures continue, the sacrifice was insufficient or the root cause was misdiagnosed' — and explicit checks (track rates before/after, verify visibility, confirm the grievance is addressed), matching the score-3 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops' anchor; not a 2 because validation checkpoints are explicit, not implicit. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | At ~30 lines, single-purpose, and with no bundle files, the well-organized sections (Overview, Steps, Decision Point, Expected Outcome, Validation) satisfy the rubric's note that sub-50-line skills with no external references can score 3 on organization alone; not a 2 because content is appropriately sectioned rather than a monolithic wall or inline material that belongs elsewhere. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |