Content
65%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 compact, well-structured routing skill whose procedure is clearly sequenced and mostly concrete, held back by placeholder-laden call syntax, unspecified inputs (frame_id, submit_token), and the absence of any verification step for what is a batch drain of the queue. Organization is excellent for a skill of this size with no bundle files.
Suggestions
Replace the `...` placeholders in the acc_act call with a concrete example invocation and state where frame_id and submit_token are obtained (presumably the `acc frames` listing output).
Add a verification step after draining, e.g., re-run `acc frames` to confirm the queue is empty and handle submit failures, to satisfy the batch-operation validation requirement.
Trim the verbatim repetition of the description in 'When to Use' and make the 'Limitations' bullets skill-specific instead of generic boilerplate.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — terse numbered steps, a one-line positioning statement ("Routing sugar over the two MCP verbs — no logic lives here"), and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It falls short of anchor 5 only because the 'When to Use' paragraph repeats the frontmatter description verbatim and the generic 'Limitations' boilerplate adds little skill-specific value, matching anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed) rather than anchor 3's noticeable padding. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | There is concrete guidance — the exact CLI (`acc frames`), the acc_act call signature, and the precise PREDICT line format — but the core submit call uses `...` placeholders for frame_id, submit_token, and proposal_text without saying where those values come from, and step 2's "read its typed hole + retrieved context, deliberate" is high-level direction rather than instruction. This fits anchor 3 (concrete but incomplete, pseudocode-like placeholders) better than anchor 4's mostly-executable guidance. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-5 give a clear sequence, but this is a batch operation ("For each open/waiting frame", "drain the queue fully") with no validation or verification checkpoint, e.g., confirming the queue is empty after draining or handling a failed submit. The rubric's guideline that batch operations lacking validation cap workflow_clarity at 3 applies, so it cannot score 4 despite the coherent ordering. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose (routing sugar over two MCP verbs), needs no external references, and is organized into clear sections (When to Use, numbered procedure, Example, Limitations). Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline this earns anchor 5 — well-organized sections with no content that belongs in separate files. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |