Content
76%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 is exceptionally concise and well-structured as a reasoning template, with a clear 4-phase sequence and output contract. It loses points on actionability (template guidance, no executable examples) and workflow clarity (no validation/feedback checkpoints for a deliberation process).
Suggestions
Add one short worked example showing the 4-phase analysis applied to a realistic task, so the template is concrete rather than abstract.
Insert explicit validation checkpoints between phases (e.g. 'Before Synthesis: confirm each insight has a stated confidence level and uncertainty marker').
Convert the `code-reviewer` reference into a clearly signaled pointer (e.g. 'Pair with the code-reviewer skill') and note when each integration applies.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean (~45 lines of tight bullet structure) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line is task-relevant. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives a concrete 4-phase checklist and a numbered output contract, but these are instructions/templates rather than executable commands; guidance is actionable as a process but lacks worked examples or runnable artifacts. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4 phases are clearly sequenced and the Output Contract enumerates expected outputs, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops; 'Mark uncertainty and confidence level' is the only checkpoint-like step. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into short sections with no bundle files needed and no nested references; structure is clean, though the single `code-reviewer` cross-reference is text-only rather than a signaled link. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |