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 lean, high-signal instruction skill: every line is a non-obvious rule or routing decision, the workflow is sequenced with an acceptance gate and checklist, and structure is appropriate for a single-file skill. The only minor gaps are the lack of a concrete eval.yaml example and an explicit failure-recovery loop.
Suggestions
Add a minimal eval.yaml skeleton (2-3 lines showing stimulus, agent_environment, and grader shape) so the eval step is copy-paste executable instead of delegating entirely to eng/harness-evaluation/README.md.
Make the error-recovery loop explicit in the Workflow, e.g. 'If lint or inventory tests fail, fix the reported issues and re-run before proceeding' — turning the implicit pitfalls table into a validate→fix→retry step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with non-obvious invariants ("Do not turn source inventories, line counts, or facts easily rediscovered from code into skill content"; "Do not add a skill-invocation grader and do not tell the agent to invoke the skill in the shared prompt") and assumes Claude's competence throughout — no filler, no concept explanations, every token earns its place. This matches the 5 anchor; the 4 anchor's 'minor instances of over-explanation' are absent. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance includes concrete paths (`.agents/skills/<name>/SKILL.md`, `eng/harness-evaluation/skills/<name>/eval.yaml`), a runnable command (`npm run lint`), and named grader types (`token-budget`), so most guidance is executable as written. It falls short of the 5 anchor because no example eval.yaml structure or minimal SKILL.md snippet is shown — the format is delegated to an external README, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Workflow section is a clear numbered 1–7 sequence with an explicit acceptance gate ("Lint the customization and inspect both control and treatment artifacts before accepting it") and a dedicated Validation checklist. It does not reach the 5 anchor because the error-recovery feedback loop (what to do when lint or the harness inventory tests fail before re-running) is only implicit via the pitfalls table, not an explicit validate→fix→retry step. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single well-organized ~50-line file (Choose The Right Primitive, Workflow, Paired Evaluation, Validation, Common Pitfalls) with no bundle files and no content that needs splitting; the one external pointer (`eng/harness-evaluation/README.md`) is a one-level, clearly signaled repo reference. Per the rubric's simple-skill note, this merits 5 on well-organized sections alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |