Content
57%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 exceptionally concise and delegates work to an external workflow, but it lacks concrete executable guidance and explicit validation checkpoints for a batch/destructive audit operation. Progressive disclosure structure is reasonable given its brevity.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of invoking the audit (e.g., a sample command or the arguments `/audit` expects) so the guidance is copy-paste ready rather than abstract.
Spell out the multi-step audit sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., verify claims were checked, confirm mismatches before reporting) to lift workflow clarity.
Briefly state what the audit report in `outputs/` should contain so the deliverable is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Very lean body with no concept re-explanation or padding; every line assumes Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is high-level ('Run the `/audit` workflow', 'Agents used: researcher, verifier') with no concrete executable steps, commands, or example of how to invoke or what the workflow produces. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Only a rough one-line sequence is implied; for a destructive/batch-prone audit operation there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized short body that delegates to the `/audit` slash command rather than nesting file references; appropriate for a skill under 50 lines, though the one navigation pointer is a command rather than a bundled file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |