Content
86%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 tight, well-structured orchestration skill with concrete commands and a clear loop. Tightening the verify step into an explicit validation-with-feedback checkpoint and adding a concrete completion-check command would lift it further.
Suggestions
Make the completion/verification step a hard checkpoint: name the concrete command used to verify an agent's claim (e.g. a specific `verify` invocation) and the retry/escalate path on failure.
Add one copy-paste-ready example of a single pass (scan command -> assess command -> act) so the loop is unambiguous to execute.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, no padded explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Rules, Loop, Completion) earns its place and assumes competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands ('agent list --json', 'detail --tail 10') and a concrete sleep range, but guidance is procedural prose rather than copy-paste-ready code blocks for the common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced five-step loop with an explicit verify step and escalation rules; however the verify checkpoint is implicit rather than a hard validation-with-feedback gate, which matters for batch/coordination operations. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with well-organized sections (Rules, Loop, Completion) and no external bundle files needed; meets the simple-skill bar for a 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |