Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and well-organized as a short checklist, but actionability and workflow clarity are held back by generic verification guidance and the absence of a fix→re-verify feedback loop. Specifying concrete verification methods would strengthen it.
Suggestions
Make step 4 concrete by naming specific verification actions or commands instead of "Re-run any weak or stale verification".
Add an explicit fix→re-verify feedback loop after step 5 so omissions are re-checked rather than fixed once.
For step 5, give a brief concrete signal for distinguishing in-scope fixes from separate follow-ups.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no concept explanations or padding; the numbered steps and final emphasis line each earn their place and assume Claude's competence. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete category lists ("consumers, output formats, filters, docs, skills, schemas, CI scripts") but several steps lack the specific how, e.g. "Re-run any weak or stale verification" gives no concrete method. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence exists with an explicit verification step (4) and a final proof gate, but there is no fix→re-verify feedback loop and the verification is generic, matching the anchor with validation gaps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no need for external references, the body is well-organized as a numbered checklist plus emphasis line, satisfying the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |