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.
A well-organized, expert-level reference body: concrete contracts, named symbols, an explicit validation checklist, and useful cross-path change rules, with almost no wasted tokens. The main gaps are the absence of any runnable verification command and a numerical deep-dive section that belongs in a reference file.
Suggestions
Move the 'Safe gate numerical note' derivations into a single one-level reference file (e.g. references/safe-gate-numerics.md) and keep a two-line invariant summary in SKILL.md.
Add the concrete command (or entry point) for running 'fla-correctness-coverage' so the validation checkpoint is executable rather than named.
Tighten the numerical prose to invariant statements (e.g. 'each exp2 operand uses a local midpoint offset, never the full chunk cumsum') to cut redundant explanation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and expert-assuming throughout — exact function names, formulas ('-exp(A_log) * softplus(g + dt_bias)'), and constraints with no padding or basic-concept explanations. Not a 5 because the 'Safe gate numerical note' section carries wordy prose ('The important invariant is not the raw cumulative value alone; it is that...') that could be tightened to the invariant statement itself. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly actionable for an instruction-only skill: exact symbol-to-file mapping, a concrete contract ('safe_gate=True requires use_gate_in_kernel=True, lower_bound is not None, and -5 <= lower_bound < 0'), a named validation tool ('use fla-correctness-coverage'), and an axis-by-axis checklist. Not a 5 because the numerical-note section describes invariants rather than instructing, and no runnable commands or code snippets are given for the verification steps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The pre-completion validation checkpoint is explicit ('Before finishing a KDA behavior change, use fla-correctness-coverage and cover only axes affected by the change') and the safe/non-safe path rule gives a clear decision constraint. Not a 5 because the workflow is implicit — the checklist is a coverage list rather than a sequenced validate/fix/retry loop, and how to invoke the verification tool is not shown. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the body is a flat, well-sectioned overview with clear headers (code map, gate modes, paths, checklist, style) and no nested references. Not a 5 because the ~30-line 'Safe gate numerical note' is deep-dive material that would sit better in a one-level reference file, keeping SKILL.md a leaner overview. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |