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 content is well-structured, actionable, and concise for an instruction-only skill, with a clear sequenced workflow and feedback loop. The main gaps are a redundant dual representation of the workflow, an un-templated agent prompt, and no explicit validation of the final goal output.
Suggestions
Collapse the dot workflow graph and the numbered Implementation steps into a single representation to remove redundancy.
Provide a copy-pasteable agent prompt template (with slots for strategy/achievements/plans) so step 1 is fully executable.
Add an explicit validation/review checkpoint for the final goal document (e.g. check each goal has success indicators at levels 2, 3, and 4 and an org-strategy alignment) before writing the file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence with no concept over-explanation; the only redundancy is that the dot workflow graph and the numbered Implementation steps describe the same flow twice. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance is given (Agent tool via general-purpose, read ~/.claude/agents/goal-writer.md first, default output ~/Desktop/goals-{year}.md, templated Goal Structure), but the exact prompt to pass to the agent is not templated. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence is present with checkpoints ('Agent confirms understanding', user 'Iterate?' gate) and a feedback loop for iteration, but there is no explicit validation of final goal quality. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections in a single file with a one-level reference to the agent file by path; over 50 lines with content reasonably inline, but no progressive split of the goal template or examples into separate files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |