Content
78%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 dense, well-sequenced decision framework that earns most of its length with genuinely non-obvious domain content and provides highly actionable, copy-paste-ready diagnostic guidance. Its weak points are rhetorical padding and a progressive-disclosure gap where referenced bundle files (template.md, examples/) are missing from the actual skill bundle.
Suggestions
Include the referenced `template.md` worksheet/risk-register and `examples/sample*.md` files in the bundle, or inline their essential content, so the Application step's 'Use template.md' pointer resolves to something real.
Trim rhetorical framing ('picking the wrong one is expensive in a different way each time', 'the diagnosis is the work') to tighten the Purpose section without losing the core directive.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the Application workflow — e.g. 'stop and confirm the yes-count places you in decline before committing to replace/retire' — to harden the decision gate.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Most tokens earn their place — the PLC stages, transition questions, and replacement hazards are non-obvious domain knowledge Claude does not already have — but rhetorical asides ('picking the wrong one is expensive in a different way each time', 'Most teams skip straight to a play') could be trimmed, so it sits above the 3 anchor without reaching the lean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives a concrete executable diagnostic: a seven-question table with an explicit yes-count decision rule (0-1/2-3/4-5/6-7), a pressure-source-to-play mapping table, four explicit extension-test questions, a five-column risk register template, six numbered steps, and a templated closing reply — copy-paste ready guidance for the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence (diagnose → identify pressure → test extension → build register → hand off → run across line) with explicit sub-instructions and the yes-count rule acting as a decision gate, but there is no hard 'confirm diagnosis before committing to a play' checkpoint, leaving minor validation gaps versus the explicit-feedback-loop 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is clean and references are one-level-deep and clearly signaled (template.md, examples/sample*.md, sibling SKILL.md files), but the referenced bundle files (template.md, examples/) are absent from the actual bundle and the Key Concepts tables are largely inlined, so structure is present with real organization gaps rather than the well-split 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |