Content
82%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.
An exceptionally lean, information-dense body that gives exact command syntax, clear discovery levels, and explicit failure semantics for the module lifecycle. The main gaps are the lack of an executable AgentModule code example and the absence of section headers and explicit verification checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add a minimal copy-paste-ready AgentModule example (subclass declaration, one In[T] port, main() with yield) to make the agent-module authoring path fully executable.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after module creation, e.g. run `agent_module op=list` and confirm state before proceeding, since results report errors but no verification step is instructed.
Add a few markdown section headers (Discovery, Streams, Agent modules, Cron jobs) to make the dense single-file body easier to navigate.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with system-specific facts ("An RPC is a module's Python API, and a `@skill` is an RPC too"; "If the file does not compile or import, the old code keeps running"; "Each call closes its SDK subscription when the read ends") and explains no general concepts Claude already knows — every token earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Tool invocations are concrete and precise ("stream_get op=read channel=ID", "agent_module op=create name=NAME path=FILE", "dimos log", "self.notify(text, **data)"), but the agent-module authoring path — a core advertised capability — is described structurally with no code example, which is more than the minor gaps allowed at 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Discovery is explicitly sequenced (summary → inventory module → inventory rpc) and the module lifecycle is clear ("Write the module's code with `write`, then run `agent_module op=create`... edit its source file with `edit` and run `op=restart`") with failure feedback ("Each result says what runs afterwards... or gives the error and its traceback"; "Use `dimos log` to investigate runtime failures"). It falls short of 5 because there is no explicit post-create verification checkpoint before relying on the module. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | At ~48 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references, all content is appropriately inline in SKILL.md with a logical paragraph-per-topic flow. It misses 5 only because there are no section headers to aid navigation of the dense prose. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |