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 well-structured knowledge-and-protocol skill: lean overview, exemplary progressive disclosure with a complete navigation table, and concrete named protocols with an explicit simulation checkpoint. The gaps are minor — two redundant/trimmable sections, no worked example, and an architecture track that reads as criteria rather than sequence.
Suggestions
Merge 'Saidas Esperadas' and 'Evidencia de Conclusao' (or fold the evidence criteria into the outputs section) — they restate the same three-track deliverables and cost ~10 lines.
Compress the 'Fontes' provenance/licensing note to one or two lines (or move it out of the runtime body): it documents authorship history rather than guiding task execution.
Add one worked example — e.g., a filled-in six-field finding from a short mechanic review, or a sample paradigm decision table — so the review and architecture protocols have a copyable shape, not just field lists.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and protocol-shaped — tables, terse bullets, no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — but two spots could be trimmed: the ~14-line 'Fontes' section on licensing provenance (administrative, not task-execution guidance) and the substantial overlap between 'Saidas Esperadas' and 'Evidencia de Conclusao', which restate the same three-track deliverables. Matches 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' — not 5 given those redundant blocks, not 3 because the redundancy is confined to two localized spots while everything else earns its tokens. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable protocols throughout: the named six-field finding structure ('observacao, mecanismo, status de evidencia, impacto, recomendacao, validacao — sem eles e opiniao, nao review'), three severity levels, four named review modes, the script-vs-simulator decision rule with the criterion for inline calculation, and a never/instead hard-rules table. Not 5 because nothing is instantiated — no worked example of a filled-in finding, a completed decision table, or a balance verdict a reader could copy the shape of. Not 3: the guidance is specific and directive, not high-level hints. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The review flow is explicitly sequenced ('Toda review nomeia o objeto, declara a decisao em jogo, constroi baseline de evidencia, e fecha com achados + menor intervencao + experimento de validacao') and the balance flow has an explicit validation checkpoint with a feedback loop ('rodar a simulação → se o resultado não bater a curva pretendida… ajustar o parâmetro específico apontado pela simulação → rodar de novo. Não aceitar "está próximo o suficiente"'). Matches 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' — not 5, because the architecture track presents selection criteria rather than a sequenced workflow with its own validation step. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a true overview: dense content is delegated to references via a subject→file table up top ('Selecao de paradigma… references/architecture-paradigms.md', etc.), with inline 'Ver references/…' pointers in each summary section. All five referenced files exist in the bundle and contain no nested references, so navigation is one level deep. Matches 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation' — not 4, because every pointer is present, subject-labeled, and resolvable. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |