Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-structured and highly actionable, with concrete commands, output schemas, tier thresholds, and clear phase sequencing. Its main weaknesses are a redundant conformance-test boilerplate tail and the absence of an explicit validation feedback loop for its batch, mutating writes.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoint after the batch write phases (e.g. run `gbrain query 'type:concept'` to verify tier/alias counts and re-run a phase on mismatches) to raise workflow clarity.
Trim or fold the 'Contract' and 'Output Format' meta-sections into the relevant body sections to remove redundant conformance-test boilerplate and recover tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean with no concept-explanation filler, but the trailing 'Contract' and 'Output Format' sections redundantly restate already-covered material and exist only 'for the conformance test', adding token overhead. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete `gbrain query` command, exact frontmatter schemas for T1/T3/T4 output, and specific tier thresholds ('No concept should be T1 with < 4 months span or < 6 mentions'), which is copy-paste-ready guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four phases are clearly sequenced with quality gates, but this is heavy batch/mutating work without an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop on the writes, which per the guidelines caps workflow clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the body is organized into clear sections with one-level-deep, clearly signaled markdown references to conventions and sibling skills, matching the simple/no-bundle anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |