Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A compact, well-organized decision framework with a verification section, but it suffers from some redundancy and an implicit rather than explicit feedback loop for a destructive operation.
Suggestions
Make the feedback loop explicit: state that if any criterion is unmet, the action is to wait and re-evaluate (mirroring Fan Li's 'Not yet').
Remove the verbatim restatement of the four criteria in Verification by referencing the Decision Criteria section instead.
Add a concrete 'how to assess' pointer for each criterion so the guidance is more directly executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean, but the four decision criteria are restated nearly verbatim in the Verification section, which could be tightened by referencing the criteria rather than repeating them. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides checkable decision criteria and specific force numbers (20,000 naval, 40,000 infantry, 6,000 elite guards), but the guidance is a strategic framework rather than a fully executable procedure with concrete next actions. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced and a verification checklist exists, but for a destructive operation the feedback loop (what to do when criteria are not met) is only implied by 'patience' rather than made explicit. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short (under 50 lines), single-purpose skill with no need for external references; the well-organized sections (Overview, Steps, Decision Criteria, Warning, Expected Outcomes, Verification) satisfy progressive disclosure. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |