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.
The body delivers a clear, well-structured incident workflow with concrete time bounds, naming conventions, validation checkpoints, and ready-to-use templates and checklists. Weaknesses are concentrated in Step 4's vague 'do stuff' phrasing and the absence of guidance for mitigation failure paths, plus minor unspecified steps in the mitigation workflow.
Suggestions
Replace 'do stuff to follow up. Things like writing a postmortem, scheduling a review, etc.' with the concrete actions already implied (e.g., 'Write the postmortem, schedule the review meeting, and file action items') — this improves both conciseness and actionability.
Add an explicit fallback for when rollback fails or no recent change is identifiable (e.g., 'If rollback does not restore baseline or no recent change exists, escalate by paging the domain owner and widen the incident channel') to close the workflow-clarity feedback-loop gap.
Make the mitigation step's investigation concrete: specify where to look for the most recent change (deploy dashboard, feature-flag console, config-change log) so the 'identify the most recent change' instruction is executable rather than a hint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely lean — time bounds ('within 5 minutes', 'every 15 minutes'), a naming convention, and compact checklists — but the Step 4 intro 'do stuff to follow up. Things like writing a postmortem, scheduling a review, etc.' is vague filler that adds tokens without information. It is above the 3 anchor because padding is isolated to one or two lines, not several sections. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Most guidance is executable and specific: 'Acknowledge the alert in the on-call tool within 5 minutes', 'Open an incident channel (e.g., `#inc-<short-name>`)', 'Post status updates every 15 minutes', plus a concrete postmortem outline and review checklist. It falls short of 5 because of the 'do stuff to follow up' phrasing and the un-specified 'identify the most recent change' step (no command or where to look), leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four steps (Triage → Mitigate → Communicate → Resolve) are clearly sequenced and include an explicit validation checkpoint ('Confirm error rates and latency return to baseline before declaring the incident contained') and time-boxed checklists. It misses 5 because there is no feedback loop for error recovery — no guidance when rollback fails or when no recent change can be identified. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a compact, self-contained SKILL.md (~55 lines) with no bundle files and no need for external references; sections are well-organized and template extraction to files (STATUS_UPDATE_TEMPLATE.md, POSTMORTEM_TEMPLATE.md) is explicitly signaled. Per the rubric's simple-skill exception, well-organized sections with no external-reference need warrant the top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |