Content
75%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 highly actionable and clearly sequenced, with an exact tool-call schema, a worked template, and strong guardrails against guessing or fabricating paths. Its main weakness is token efficiency: Section 5's completion-status rules and the triple-repeated preservation guidance could be consolidated without losing any of the guidance.
Suggestions
Consolidate Section 5's ~10 completion/incompletion bullets into 3-4 non-redundant rules (define each status once, state the tie-breakers, forbid invented follow-up work once) — the same point is made in "If the task is complete, say so and do not invent follow-up work", "If the task is incomplete...say that clearly and include the next concrete step", and "Do not continue old user requests after compression".
Merge the three overlapping preservation lists (Section 2.5, the "Preserve exact carriers of future work" block, and Section 6) into a single canonical list, keeping Section 6 focused on index selection.
Reconsider the hard "at least 10,000 characters" minimum — it incentivizes padding; either lower it, replace it with a quality-based floor ("as long as needed to cover all sections accurately"), or add a pre-call checkpoint so the length requirement acts as validation rather than a verbosity driver.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Everything is task-specific with no generic concept explanations, but there is noticeable redundancy: Section 5 restates the complete/incomplete rules roughly ten times ("If the task is complete, say so and do not invent follow-up work" / "If complete, say it is complete and do not imply more work remains"), and preservation guidance appears three times (Section 2.5, the "Preserve exact carriers" block, and Section 6). The 10,000-character minimum also actively encourages padding rather than assuming Claude's competence — anchor 3 (mostly efficient, could be tightened) rather than 2 since none of it is off-topic filler. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully concrete: the exact tool-call JSON schema with summary, preserved_user_input_indexes, and skill_suggestions (name/reason) is given, a worked output-format template covers both complete and incomplete task states, and rules are precise (path fidelity rules, "quote the original user-provided path and mark it as unresolved", "pass an empty list instead of guessing"). Matches anchor 5 for an instruction-only skill with copy-paste-ready guidance covering common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear — produce the seven summary sections, select user input indexes, select skills, then pass everything to compact_chat_history — with explicit guardrails ("Use indexes only from the latest User Input Reference Index visible in context", record failed read paths verbatim, keep unresolved failure evidence visible). Not a destructive/batch operation so no cap applies; it falls short of 5 only because there is no final checkpoint before the tool call, e.g. verifying the 10,000-character minimum or that selected indexes are valid. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure: Instructions → Output Format Example → Rules with clear section headers, and no external references are needed or claimed (none of references/, scripts/, assets/ exist, and the body references no bundle files). The body is ~166 lines, so the under-50-line simple-skill exception to 5 does not apply, and the detailed section-by-section requirements plus the long worked example could arguably live in a reference file — anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps). | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |