Content
75%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.
The body is a concise, well-sequenced orchestration procedure with no padding, but its actionability suffers from the absence of a concrete switch-request example and explicit validation/handoff checkpoints. Adding one worked example and labeled subsections would lift actionability and progressive_disclosure.
Suggestions
Add one short worked example showing the exact phrasing of a stage-switch request and its one-sentence reason.
Break the three paragraphs into labeled subsections (e.g., '## Process', '## Stage transitions', '## Completion') for clearer navigation.
Add an explicit verification checkpoint before declaring completion, e.g., confirm all acceptance criteria are met before giving the final answer.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and instruction-only with no concept padding — every line instructs behavior and assumes Claude's competence, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete process guidance (identify goals/dependencies/acceptance criteria, stage order, one-sentence switch reason) but lacks a concrete example of an actual switch request, leaving key execution details implicit. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence (identify goals → staged switching → one-at-a-time with stated reason → final answer) is clear with implicit checkpoints ('after each stage completes', acceptance criteria); this is not a destructive/batch skill so no cap applies, with only minor validation gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | As a simple under-50-line single-purpose skill with no bundle files, it is reasonably organized, though it could use explicit subsection headers instead of plain paragraphs for better navigation. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |